Source: White House to announce opposition to Keystone pipeline project
January 18th, 2012
12:13 PM ET

Source: White House to announce opposition to Keystone pipeline project

The Obama administration will likely announce its opposition to the controversial Keystone pipeline project as early as today, according to a Democratic source briefed on the matter.

The pipeline would run from northern Alberta in Canada down to Texas's Gulf Coast. Republicans and some unions want to push approval through for the project in favor of the job creation prospects. The administration points to environmental reviews still underway and opponents express concerns about the nation's oil dependency being further embraced in regards to not rushing a decision.

soundoff (36 Responses)
  1. BOMBO ©

    Meh. We'll just sell it to the Pacific rim countries. One way or another, it'll get pulled out of the ground, processed, sold, and burned up. I would think that an oil self-sufficient NAFTA zone would make more sense, but enjoy your Saudi and Venezuelan oil instead.

    January 18, 2012 at 12:20 pm | Report abuse |
  2. s kel

    oil company Oil companys are the enemy of the earth.

    January 18, 2012 at 12:30 pm | Report abuse |
  3. rooney @

    not too smart that obama

    January 18, 2012 at 12:32 pm | Report abuse |
  4. Pam Gannon

    Residents of NE have been fighting the pipeline because of the dangers to the aquifer that runs under the sandhills and supplys water to residents and crops throughout several states. The information that we have learned is that the oil is NOT staying in the US - it will be all going to the gulf region for export. How does this help the US energy needs? Also, the thousands of jobs are mostly temporary jobs, running from Canada to Texas. Misinformation, selective information and exaggeration are again live and well. Even our Republican governor has come out against the pipeline. Perhaps the Congress should talk to those with the real information before perpetuating political rhetoric.

    January 18, 2012 at 12:39 pm | Report abuse |
    • banasy¬©

      Thank you.

      January 18, 2012 at 1:09 pm | Report abuse |
    • Scottish Mama

      Thank you, too. I think the risk of dirty sand oil on our crops water and the few jobs it will produce is a quick fix to transient jobs is not worth it, either. It is so expensive to clean it. I just wonder why the Canadians did not just pipe it and clean it at their coast? I think it will turn out to be an abytross around our necks.

      January 18, 2012 at 3:00 pm | Report abuse |
  5. AlphaD

    Thank goodness President Obama is wise enough to realize that the Keystone pipeline would do more harm than good. And why is it that the pipeline has to travel all the way to the Gulf? That's awfully far–wouldn't the Pacific Ocean or the Great Lakes be closer? Why go through the U.S. at all–why not go through Canada to the coast? And if the the oil is going to be exported to other countries....?? Oh, I get it-oil companies donate big money to congress members' campaigns, congress does what oil companies tell them to do. If there were ever an arguement for the need to switch to renewable, non-petroleum fuels, and ending our reliance on oil, (and the control that Big Oil has on our government)this is it.

    January 18, 2012 at 12:59 pm | Report abuse |
    • Portland tony

      You have to get crude to a refinery somehow!

      January 18, 2012 at 1:13 pm | Report abuse |
  6. banasy©

    NOT s kel.

    January 18, 2012 at 1:08 pm | Report abuse |
  7. Portland tony

    It's just kicking the can down the road politically. The Alternative route will be eventually approved.....after the election. The way things are shaping up in the Persian Gulf, and with rising gas prices, it will be a much more feasible project this fall.

    January 18, 2012 at 1:08 pm | Report abuse |
    • banasy¬©

      I assume that all of the concerns will be addressed by then.....?
      Oh, no, never mind.
      I see.

      January 18, 2012 at 1:10 pm | Report abuse |
  8. EXXON

    Got oil

    January 18, 2012 at 1:17 pm | Report abuse |
  9. Michael

    It is precisley clowns like the above posters and the present administration that keep this country down. We need a stronger economy, jobs, and less reliance on other countries for our energy needs. Some people are too narrow minded to comprehend this they need to be educated. They are more concerned about a polar bear than food on the table for the working class. Me, I work for a living.

    January 18, 2012 at 1:26 pm | Report abuse |
    • banasy¬©

      You blanket statement tells me all I need to know about you.
      WE won't be the beneficiaries of this oil.
      It's not OUR oil.
      I, too, work for a living.
      Pipe down.
      Pun intended.

      January 18, 2012 at 1:31 pm | Report abuse |
    • Scottish Mama

      AS opposed to the previous administration. Cause they never brought the country to its knees?

      January 18, 2012 at 3:03 pm | Report abuse |
  10. BOMBO ©

    One more comment, before I get out of the way. No, there are no guarantees that the oil flowing there will be used in the US, some may just be exported. But economics would dictate that most of it will be refined there for US use. The refining capacity is right there at the outlet. Of course they'll prefer to refine the oil coming out of that pipeline. As for the environmental impact, pipeline leaks are rare. Preliminary studies have been done. I believe what is going on now is just a delay tactic. Finally, should we get off oil entirely and use only renewable energy? Of course we should, but we're not there yet. The technologies still need to be fully developed.

    January 18, 2012 at 1:41 pm | Report abuse |
    • Scottish Mama

      @Bombo maybe less oil will get us there faster?

      January 18, 2012 at 3:05 pm | Report abuse |
  11. bobcat (in a hat)©

    Many articles I read about this project leave a negative view. The oil is highly acidic which has caused many problems with the pipeline itself. The process of extracting this oil requires a very expensive process, which does not make it cost effective. I believe we would just shoot ourselves in the foot with this project. The republicans want this because of their ties to oil companies. It would make a lot more sense to create jobs that address our infrastructure. If our roads and bridges are no good, what good would the extra oil do ?

    January 18, 2012 at 2:47 pm | Report abuse |
  12. Scotish Mama

    My point exactly bobcat.

    January 18, 2012 at 3:22 pm | Report abuse |
  13. BOMBO©

    Finally, we should have flying cars by the year 2025. Oil will not be needed. Solar power in the day and nuclear power at night. This will be good for the environment. CLEAN will be the only way to describe the environment then.

    January 18, 2012 at 3:29 pm | Report abuse |
  14. banasy©


    January 18, 2012 at 4:17 pm | Report abuse |
  15. Nini

    Our president again puts Country last and his ideology first.

    Why does he hate America so much?

    January 18, 2012 at 4:42 pm | Report abuse |
1 2