world

Obama rejects contested Canada pipeline

65 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2012 AFP

©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.

65 Comments
Login to comment

A sad day for Big Oil's conservative supporters who clearly couldn't care less about shoveling a 'shovel-ready' project down the throats of ordinary Americans to extract possibly the dirtiest form of oil and endanger unimportant underground water supplies used to grow something as unimportant and boring as food.

Hey, when a spill happens that poisons underground water supplies, America can always import bottled water from China!

And the GOP is all in a panic because the WH didn't warn them of the impnding decision - horrors!

No doubt, GOP leadership are right now getting their butts whipped by their Big Oil slave masters for not lying enough to the American people about how great Keystone would be for all Americans, even those who lose land and have food and water supplies poisoned.

Go-bama 2012!

0 ( +2 / -2 )

@SushiSake3

What a bunch of vitriol. If you're opposed to something, you should learn to state that opposition without resorting to ad hominem attacks and tired old cliches.

Also...

Hey, when a spill happens that poisons underground water supplies

And where, pray tell, is the environmental study that stated that this was even remotely possible?

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Who in America needs affordable oil anyway? And why get it from nearby Canada when we can get it from Saudi Arabia ?

Jobs? Who needs jobs? The big election issue is light rail !

2 ( +3 / -1 )

And I always thought that the oil industry controlled the US government.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This will literally fuel the anti-Obama supporters in the next election. Expect the Republican nominee to get a lot of funding from an unbeknownst super Pac. I think we have to comment the administration for sticking to their guns on this and demanding an alternate way. Yet, pipeline or no pipeline, Canada still sends all it's oil to the US by train or truck. The pipeline would merely have made things more convenient at the expense of the environment.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

not comment, but commend... oops.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This is one campaign promise that Obama has kept.

The part of Obama's base that is down with actress/environmentalist/activist/organic- sustainable lifestyle spokesperson Daryl Hannah must be thrilled.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Good Grief,

This Headline from CNN says it all.

Canada will look to China to sell its oil

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

No pipeline, then build a new refinery on the border.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

A Washington Post analysis concluded

The fate of the Keystone XL pipeline will be of limited consequence to either long-term U.S. energy security or climate change.

The headline is also misleading; Obama did not reject the pipeline; he rejected the arbitrary deadline that the Republicans had imposed. The pipeline may still go through, either in its current form or modified to avoid sensitive aquifers.

One thing I think we should have learned from Fukushima, though, is not to cut corners when it comes to environmental safety. In that sense, I think it was the right decision.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

The long lines at the gas station during the Carter era actually helped Carter. I read it in the Washington Post.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

One thing I think we should have learned from Fukushima, though, is not to cut corners when it comes to environmental safety.

Well when it comes to environmental safety the Chinese have just been "stellar" on that front.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

The Chinese have envy eyes towards the pipeline :P

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

"Canada looks to China as Obama denies Keystone"

Oh, my...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Up next is EPA closure of 30 coal plants across the nation. Hundreds of jobs gonna be lost. Billions of dollars in additional costs, but tax payers get to pick it up.

Daryl Hannah rocks.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Obama wants to satisfy all his ultra liberal environmental fascist tree-huggers while also making sure that he also keeps happy all his Islamic OPECite backers.

He'll have us headed towards $10 a gal fuel one way or another, while killing the 10,000 jobs the pipeline would have created. So much for his "focused like a laser" on jobs. It's obvious he wants to hinder, hurt, and weaken America any way he can. Can you say, "raise the debt limit another $1,200,000,000,000.00"? This guy is America's worst nightmare.

RR

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

"Good Grief,

This Headline from CNN says it all.

Canada will look to China to sell its oil"

How does this fit your constant media bias theory Sailwind?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Good Grief,

This Headline from CNN says it all.

Canada will look to China to sell its oil"

How does this fit your constant media bias theory Sailwind?

I could have used a FOX news headline instead as there is no bias there either just for little "balance".

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Canada will look to China to sell its oil

I just want to try wrap my head around this for a moment. President Obama raises the national debt to unheard levels on credit by selling T-bills to China. Who in turn makes a healthy return when the T-Bill's mature. China has loads of dollars in interest payments or just pure profit for them. They then buy Canadian oil using our dollars that we promised to pay back for a little national loan action to continue to be able to deficit spend to our hearts content. So we are basically are going to buy Canada's oil but just going through China who will actually get to use the stuff.

Now that is a "money" pipeline that I could do without myself and would like to see killed instead.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So when the headline reads what you want it's unbiased.

Thanks Sailwind, I just wanted to get to the nub of that one.

2 ( +1 / -0 )

A slight understanding of economics helps here. It really doesn't matter WHO buys the oil - China buying oil from Canada means they'll buy less elsewhere, and the global price will remain the same.

Also, Obama does not need to satisfy his base; environmentalists may have been displeased by his green-lighting the project, but they'd be apoplectic at the thought of a Republican president allowing industry free rein to rape the country. He's going to take a political hit from this from the moderates. If he'd been calculating votes, he would have let it go.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Prety sad when the U.S gets decried for sending her children into the Middle East to secure Kuwait and Iraq to secured oil supplies to the western world

Yet now to securqe our energy future we are going to Canada, no thanks.

Insanity.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

A slight understanding of economics helps here. It really doesn't matter WHO buys the oil

I'll pass that on to Costa Rica.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Just saw a campaign ad on TV here in the States where "The One" is patting himself on the back about his record on creating energy jobs on the day he 86'd the Keystone pipeline.

Too funny.

RR

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Keystone is beneficial to America. It creates thousands of jobs that don't require federal money. Which is why "Dear Leader" hates it.

No-bama 2012

RR

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

I don't find it at all surprising to see our local partisans here all blaming President Obama while ignoring the fact that Nebraska has held the whole process hostage as well. But a quick look to see what letter follows their governors name is all it takes to know that little nugget of information will never again see the light of day on this thread. So since Nebraska is a red state, we mustn't mention that they blocked pipeline being built through their state, meaning a major re-route would have to be done.

I guess mentioning that Nebraska's blocking the pipeline would be media bias. That's the lesson I learned on this thread today.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

It's not at all surprising to see our local partisans howling at the moon at the president without getting all of their facts straight. Nebraska is holding up the pipeline as well but you don't here any of the partisan hacks complaining about Nebraska. Nope, it's all about the dark man in the White House, ain't that right, ramen?

And of course the "biased" media won't report on it. That would make President Obama look bad. Wait a minute!

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Keystone is beneficial to America. It creates thousands of jobs that don't require federal money. Which is why "Dear Leader" hates it.

Heh, and unlike the 'porkulus' it actually contains shovel ready jobs. Of course he wants it dead. I think he made his position on the economy perfectly clear when he killed oil production in the gulf. If that wasn't enough of a clue, add the burdensome EPA regulations they're rolling out, forcing the closure of around 40 power plants. Raising the cost of energy even further, and further squeezing an already damaged economy. Yep, Obama is focused like a laser on putting Americans out of work.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

70 percent of Americans think Obama has miscalculated here. Good work.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

A slight understanding of economics helps here. It really doesn't matter WHO buys the oil - China buying oil from Canada means they'll buy less elsewhere, and the global price will remain the same.

Have you got a nice pat answer for the jobs lost ?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Job creation ? Why, this administration is "focused like a laser."

Just kidding, suckaz...

0 ( +1 / -1 )

And of course the "biased" media won't report on it. That would make President Obama look bad. Wait a minute!

Hey, if I had people like Sanitorium, Willard, and Newton-Leroy leading up my party's fight back, I'd be dissing Obama with all I had. Facts? Who needs 'em??!!

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Hey, just because a majority of Americans approve of the Keystone pipeline, that doesn't mean they're right! President Obama must be right to reject it because he cannot vouch for its safety!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Hey, just because a majority of Americans approve of the Keystone pipeline

That same "majority" could not locate Nebraska on a map of the United States.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

That same "majority" could not locate Nebraska on a map of the United States.

Like a true "liberal", Yabits never misses a chance to bash his own country.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

So much for "shovel ready jobs', huh? Pandering to the environmentalist and union crowd is always the first priority for a democrat.

RR

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Why does Obama hate America (that's what a U.S. liberal - global liberals don't count - would be asking if a republican president made the same announcemt)?

RR

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

yabits Jan. 21, 2012 - 01:17AM JST. will actually increase the price of gasoline by 20 to 30 cents per gallon in many regions as well as subject a major aquifer to environmental harm, they would be soundly against it -- just as the Republican governor of Nebraska and a majority of people of that state are opposed to it.

Leaving aside the fact that an increase in oil supply of at least 700,000 barrels per day would drastically DECREASE petroleum prices,not increase them. U.S. Department of State conducted a thorough environmental review and concluded that the pipeline poses few environmental risks. DOS studied and addressed risk to soil, wetlands, water resources, vegetation, fish, wildlife, and endangered species. They concluded that the construction of the pipeline would pose minimal environmental risk.

This is not leadership. Somehow Obama believes U.S. will be stronger turning its back on secure supplies of oil that will be needed for decades to come. U.S. will need more oil. They see the benefits of importing more from Canada while also producing more at home. This political decision offers hard evidence that creating jobs is not a high priority for this administration,

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

This story could mean more oil for Japan.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Leaving aside the fact that an increase in oil supply of at least 700,000 barrels per day would drastically DECREASE petroleum prices,not increase them.

Totally wrong. Let's not get stupid here. No company builds a $7 billion pipeline in order to get a "drastically" DECREASED price for the product flowing through it.

The reason TransCanada wants the pipeline comes directly from their 2008 Permit Application: "Existing markets for Canadian heavy crude, principally PADD II [U.S. Midwest], are currently oversupplied, resulting in price discounting for Canadian heavy crude oil. Access to the USGC [U.S. Gulf Coast] via the Keystone XL Pipeline is expected to strengthen Canadian crude oil pricing in [the Midwest] by removing this oversupply. This is expected to increase the price of heavy crude to the equivalent cost of imported crude. The resultant increase in the price of heavy crude is estimated to provide an increase in annual revenue to the Canadian producing industry in 2013 of US $2 billion to US $3.9 billion.."

Get that? If you can read English, you should be able to understand what the pipeline is supposed to accomplish: It's going to bypass the U.S. Midwest refineries (which are "oversupplied"). The crude destined for the Gulf is intended for export.

Independent analysts estimate that prices of gasoline will strengthen (read: INCREASE) by the tune of 30 to 40 cents a gallon.

I similarly utterly reject your environmental opinions as based upon the same kind of disinformation as the impact on gas prices.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I find it funny that not one of our Obama-ankle biters can lead with a single fact. It's all rhetoric and hatred. Nothing based in reality. All opinion and conjecture.

When presented with facts, they run from them like they're a gay military recruiter.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Like a true "liberal", Yabits never misses a chance to bash his own country.

So it took you three tries to find Nebraska. No need to take it out on Yabits.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

yabits: "That same "majority" could not locate Nebraska on a map of the United States."

So, the majority of Americans are dumb as a box of rocks for supporting the Keystone pipeline?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So, the majority of Americans are dumb as a box of rocks for supporting the Keystone pipeline?

There is a substantial difference between an American who may be temporarily ignorant or misinformed of the important facts regarding Keystone, and the American who is beyond rationally and maturely assessing those facts -- as readers of those who ask questions like the one above can well attest.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So, an American who disagrees with yabits on the Keystone pipeline is either temporarily ignorant, misinformed, or beyond rationally and maturely assessing facts. lol. The condescendence here is amazing.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

So, an American who disagrees with yabits on the Keystone pipeline is either temporarily ignorant, misinformed, or beyond rationally and maturely assessing facts

The American who is capable of rationally and maturely assessing facts would be doing that, and not engaging in meta-talk. For example, the fact that TransCanada -- in their own permit request for the pipeline -- asserts that one of the main purposes for building Keystone is to divert crude away from Midwest refineries, thereby raising prices to those markets by "correcting" an "over-supply" situation. Therefore, the pipeline will mean higher oil and gas prices for millions of Americans.

Have the Americans who are supposedly in favor of the pipeline been informed of that? Not by the lie-through-their-teeth conservative backers and their willing dupes. I seriously doubt if a majority of Americans are in favor of paying higher gas prices.

The condescendence here is amazing.

Actually, what is amazing is how some people want to remain so willfully clueless, such that disdain for them is richly warranted.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So, yabits, if Canada sells its oil to China instead of the U.S., it will be the Republicans' fault, right?

"disdain for them ( those who support the Keystone pipeline ) is richly warranted"

yabits - we're laughing at the superior intellect.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

So, yabits, if Canada sells its oil to China instead of the U.S., it will be the Republicans' fault, right?

It's a stupid question. Canada is a sovereign nation and can sell its oil to whom it chooses to. There's no need to have to build a pipeline through the United States to the Gulf in order to bypass Midwestern refineries and so export their oil to China from there -- all the while raising prices for millions of Americans.

we're laughing at the superior intellect.

It's what inferior minds do.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Environmentalist made the same claims about the Alaskan pipeline. It was going to destroy everything. Well those were lies thirty plus years ago and they are still lies today. How can you tell when and environmentalist is lying? The lips are moving. This thing has been studies for years. It doesn't need anymore review. It need to be built. This project will be a long term gain. Well I guess they could just load all the oil onto thousands of truck and drive it south. Then you don't need the approval of an idiot. But I don't think that would be safer. But it would still make thousands of jobs. Environmentalist are the worst thing to ever happen to this country. They are destroying jobs and causing the price of everything to go up.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Yabits,

For example, the fact that TransCanada -- in their own permit request for the pipeline -- asserts that one of the main purposes for building Keystone is to divert crude away from Midwest refineries, thereby raising prices to those markets by "correcting" an "over-supply" situation. Therefore, the pipeline will mean higher oil and gas prices for millions of Americans.

Your wrong.

In June 2010 TransCanada commenced commercial operation of the first phase of the Keystone Pipeline System. Keystone's first phase was highlighted by the conversion of natural gas pipeline to crude oil pipeline and construction of an innovative bullet line that brings the crude oil non-stop from Canada to market hubs in the U.S. Midwest.

Keystone Cushing (Phase II), an extension of the Keystone Pipeline from Steele City, Nebraska to Cushing, Oklahoma went into service in February 2011. The 36-inch pipeline connects to storage and distribution facilities at Cushing, a major crude oil marketing/refining and pipeline hub.

The proposed Keystone Gulf Coast Expansion Project is an approximate 2,673-kilometre (1,661-mile), 36-inch crude oil pipeline that would begin at Hardisty, Alberta and extend southeast through Saskatchewan, Montana, South Dakota and Nebraska. It would incorporate a portion of the Keystone Pipeline (Phase II) through Nebraska and Kansas to serve markets at Cushing, Oklahoma before continuing through Oklahoma to a delivery point near existing terminals in Nederland, Texas to serve the Port Arthur, Texas marketplace.

http://www.transcanada.com/keystone.html

It would incorporate a portion of the Keystone Pipeline (Phase II) through Nebraska and Kansas to serve markets at Cushing, Oklahoma before continuing through Oklahoma to a delivery point near existing terminals in Nederland, Texas to serve the Port Arthur, Texas marketplace.

Just in case you missed that part.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Your wrong. [sic] In June 2010 TransCanada commenced commercial operation of the first phase of the Keystone Pipeline System. Keystone's first phase was highlighted by the conversion of natural gas pipeline to crude oil pipeline and construction of an innovative bullet line that brings the crude oil non-stop from Canada to market hubs in the U.S. Midwest.

No, it is you who are wrong. Perhaps you are among those who foolishly believe that TransCanada is building the pipeline in order to receive less per barrel for its product.

Read your own post/info and start to get wise: The first phase of Keystone terminates at two locations in Illinois. All of the crude is therefore destined for refineries in that area. TransCanada can supply more than those area refineries can handle, creating an over-supply situation. Simple as night and day.

Phase 2 diverted some of the supply to its termination point in Oklahoma, but overall the over-supply situation remains in PADD II.

In order to correct the over-supply situation and allow prices to rise in PADD II, TransCanada needs another outlet for its product: Which is the purpose of Phase III and XL. Anyone who reads English can grasp the meaning of what TransCanada intended in its permit request for XL.

Let's face it, anyone who claims that the crude from TransCanada -- largely intended for export from XL's termination point in Texas -- is going to lower gas prices in the U.S. Midwest, is kidding themselves. (Cutting and pasting from TransCanada's home page is laughably naive.)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Anyone who reads English can grasp the meaning of what TransCanada intended in its permit request for XL.

Yes, the commercial case for the Keystone XL project was entirely based on this Midwestern buildup and future production growth in the Bakken and Canadian oilsands. If you look at the Keystone project map, you will see that the pipeline will pick up production from those two regions, largely bypass the Midwestern region, and deliver oil to the Gulf Coast. Currently, the Gulf region imports over 5.5 million barrels per day of crude oil and related products at world prices. In other words, without the Keystone XL system, shippers are selling into depressed Midwestern markets or paying extra costs for transport by rail. Thus, the Keystone XL pipeline offered a win-win for producers and refiners, notwithstanding the environmental issues along its route.

http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/11/21/explaining-canadas-hurry-to-build-pipelines-in-the-u-s/

It's called supply and demand for those of us that errrr.....grasp English. Or we can build new refineries in the Mid-west.......but since we haven't built or permitted one to be built since 1976 I think we are pretty safe ground to say that is a non-starter right of the bat.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Yes, the commercial case for the Keystone XL project was entirely based on this Midwestern buildup and future production growth in the Bakken and Canadian oilsands.

Yes, that's what I've been saying all along. The Macleans article further reinforces it.

It's called supply and demand for those of us that errrr.....grasp English. Or we can build new refineries in the Mid-west.......but since we haven't built or permitted one to be built since 1976

Building new refineries in the Mid-West would make no economic sense at all, since there's already an over-supply of refined fuel in that region. The correction of the over-supply situation (via Keystone XL) would raise fuel prices for a large part of the U.S. agriculture enterprises located in the region and would, in turn, lead to higher food costs for most Americans.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

...but it does not change my administrations commitment to American-made energy that creates jobs and reduces our dependence on oil, said Obama, who initially hoped to make a decision after the November election.

Solar Energy Company Touted By Obama Goes Bankrupt http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/08/solar-energy-company-touted-by-obama-goes-bankrupt/*

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Wow, that's gonna make the Unions unhappy with Obama. Sweet.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

yabitsJan. 21, 2012 - 09:19AM JST. Independent analysts estimate that prices of gasoline will strengthen (read: INCREASE) by the tune of 30 to 40 cents a gallon.

But perhaps the biggest whopper of all is the claim that Keystone XL will raise gasoline prices. The idea that the construction of a pipeline carrying 700,000 barrels of oil per day from Canada to U.S., thus reducing our reliance on OPEC and providing a more stable supply of petroleum, will somehow increase prices is an interesting proposition. It almost requires an individual to abandon logic and rational thought altogether.

The Canadian government say that the project might increase the price per barrel that oil sands producers can charge. But as could be expected, what KXL opponents ignore is more important than what they actually cite. For instance, in its Reasons for Decision filing, Canada’s National Energy Board describes how traditional supply sources of heavy crude for the U.S. Gulf Coast including Mexico and Venezuela are declining. As a result, those refiners are seeking to diversity their supply sources by obtaining access to western Canadian crude. In other words, existing sources are no longer reliable, which in the future will mean increased scarcity and, in turn, higher prices. In the highly complex world that is the nation’s energy supply, the answer is often not as simple as some make it seem.

Faced with declining imports from Mexico and Venezuela, the Gulf Coast refineries will replace these supplies with new crude supplies from either Canada, Montana, and the Dakotas via Keystone XL, or the Middle East via tankers. The choice is fairly simple, get cheaper oil from reliable North American reserves, or more expensive oil from unstable regions subject to disruptions. One needs to look no further than the crisis surrounding the Strait of Hormuz to understand which way we should be going as a nation.

Given the vast implications inherent in Keystone XL’s approval, and the fact that gas prices in 2011 set a record high and are projected to increase in 2012, the American people deserve an open and honest debate about this project. Keystone XL represents an opportunity to reduce U.S. dependence on OPEC, increase price stability and lower prices at the pump for American drivers.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

But perhaps the biggest whopper of all is the claim that Keystone XL will raise gasoline prices.

I think it would only right to be honest with readers by saying your post is a cut-and-paste from an industry lobbyist, Michael Whatley, of the Consumer Energy Alliance, an astrotuf organization paid by the oil industry to push B.S. onto as many media outlets as possible.

You can try selling that crap somewhere else. TransCanada already acknowledges the pipeline will raise gas prices in much of the area covered by PADD II.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You can try selling that crap somewhere else. TransCanada already acknowledges the pipeline will raise gas prices in much of the area covered by PADD II.

It really does amaze me how some people seem to have flunked economics. Go back and re-read the section on supply and demand please. Things will make more sense, and you won't feel the need to raise idiotic ideas, with no basis in reality. Seriously, increasing supply does not cause an increase in price.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

yabitsJan. 24, 2012 - 07:11AM JST. You can try selling that crap somewhere else. TransCanada already acknowledges the pipeline will raise gas prices in much of the area covered by PADD II.

Are you only thinking about possible increase prices? So you don't believe there will be declining oil production from Mexico, Venezuela and other major suppliers? Unfortunately, in the world of oil production, there is no standing still: to stand still is to fall behind and U.S. has to adjust to future consquences. The significant factor on petroleum demand has been human population growth and income growth. The world population in 2030 will be almost double that of 1980. China alone adds 18-20 million vehicles a year. A severe energy crunch is inevitable without a massive expansion of production and refining capacity. While it is difficult to predict what economic, political, and strategic effects such a shortfall might produce, it surely would reduce the prospects for growth in both the developing and developed worlds. Such an economic slowdown would exacerbate other unresolved tensions. At best, it would lead to periods of harsh economic adjustment.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It really does amaze me how some people seem to have flunked economics. Go back and re-read the section on supply and demand please. Things will make more sense, and you won't feel the need to raise idiotic ideas, with no basis in reality. Seriously, increasing supply does not cause an increase in price.

It really does amaze me -- (not really) -- how some people lack so much basic common sense. Go back and re-read the article and the thread. Supply of Alberta crude to the northern part of PADD II will decrease, not increase. That's why the extension to the Gulf of Mexico is being built. Because now the crude is stopping in the Mid-West where there's too much supply to meet demand. TransCanada admits that the price per barrel of its product is at least 4-5 dollars under the world price under the current scheme.

Once that over-supply situation is corrected, and the crude is diverted to Texas -- mainly for export -- prices in the upper Mid-West will rise. Your obviously another one who believes that a company would undertake a pipeline project so that people will pay less for its product. (Obviously a Republican voter.)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Are you only thinking about possible increase prices? So you don't believe there will be declining oil production from Mexico, Venezuela and other major suppliers?

Oil, being the non-renewable resource that it is, means that production will ultimately have to decline everywhere. Economies that are currently based heavily on oil will need to start shifting away from it -- to cleaner, renewable energy technologies -- NOW.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

yabitsJan. 24, 2012 - 09:46PM JST. Economies that are currently based heavily on oil will need to start shifting away from it -- to cleaner, renewable energy technologies -- NOW.

In a mass scale, you can only work with the existing technology. Problem is U.S. goverment will not tighten the screws on major companies like GM, Ford, Toyota and other manufacturers to accelerate producing more fuel efficient cars. Profit seems to comes first. If the U.S. goverment can put restrictions on the maximum engine size to 2.0 litre (122cid) and the maxium weight of the vehicle to 3500 lbs. By changing the law, the U.S. consumption of the oil will reduce by 25 percent in 10 years. U.S. should adopt the Japanese system for heavy taxation based on engine size and gradually reduce dependency on larger engines. They are adding turbos on the 4 cylinders to get as much power as previous generation V8's and adding more gears on the transmission to reduce RPM and increase gas milage, but this is costly. Price has to come down for wider acceptance. Battery power cars are still years away and has no impact.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

now we know why obama bows to the saudi king.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

" Oil, being the non-renewable resource that it is, means that production will ultimately have to decline everywhere. Economies that are currently based heavily on oil will need to start shifting away from it -- to cleaner, renewable energy technologies -- NOW "

and wishing will magically make that pipe dream come true. money in the bank.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

yabits Jan. 24, 2012 - 07:11AM JST. You can try selling that crap somewhere else. TransCanada already acknowledges the pipeline will raise gas prices in much of the area covered by PADD II.

They are. Harper and Canadian goverment is negotiating with China on building pipelines from western Alberta to B.C. Bye Bye Obama and U.S. on the pipelines.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites