The President and Mr. Obama.
The United States of North America: "We are the world!"
Naive protesters look on as people die
Question: Why do we need this Keystone Pipeline? What would happen if we didn't get it?
Answer: The Keystone Pipeline already exists. What doesn’t exist fully yet is its proposed expansion, the Keystone XL Pipeline. The existing Keystone runs from oil sand fields in Alberta, Canada into the U.S., ending in Cushing, Oklahoma. The 1,700 new miles of pipeline would offer two sections of expansion. First, a southern leg would connect Cushing, Oklahoma, where there is a current bottleneck of oil, with the Gulf Coast of Texas, where oil refineries abound. That leg went into operation in January 2014. Second, the pipeline would include a new section from Alberta to Kansas. It would pass through Bakken Shale region of eastern Montana and western North Dakota. Here, it will pass through a region where oil extraction is currently booming and take on some of this crude for transport.
The southern leg of the Keystone XL ties into the existing Keystone pipeline that already runs to Canada, bringing up to 700,000 barrels of oil a day to refineries in Texas. At peak capacity, the pipeline will deliver 830,000 barrels of oil per day. While the pipeline is initially carried U.S. light crude, it is expected to carry more heavy Canadian oil harvested from tar sands over the next year.
Prospects for approval of the Keystone XL pipeline are dimming amid two recent developments: lower gasoline prices and increased skepticism from President Barack Obama, whose administration has been reviewing the proposed pipeline for more than six years. Mr. Obama last week said he had doubts the pipeline would benefit the U.S., buttressing remarks he has made publicly at least three other times since early November. He said it wouldn’t create many permanent jobs or cut gas prices, as the project’s supporters have argued. “It’s very good for Canadian oil companies, and it’s good for the Canadian oil industry, but it’s not going to be a huge benefit to U.S. consumers,” Mr. Obama said.
Question: The President says the pipeline is no good for America. Is he wrong?
Answer: Barack Obama says the pipeline is good for the world, but may not be good for America? Well, listen here, buddy. Just like those hippies told us in that song way back in the 1980s, "We are the world!" What's good for the Canadians is good for us. How come? I'm glad you asked. If the Canadians don't have any money, then how are they going to buy coal from us to heat their igloos? Damn straight, Skippy. When we buy Canadian tar sand crude for our God-fearing SUVs (which is the only type vehicle a real American would own; don't get me started on Kia Rios, for God sake!), those Canucks can finally get off their frozen dierriers long enough to pony up some hallelujah cash for you and me and ours.
And speaking of frozen backsides, think about Texas. There's a lot of farms in Texas, right along with a lot of oil fields. When you have a farm, you have cattle and pigs. When you have cattle and pigs, you have poop. All that poop releases methane gas and hydrogen sulfate right on up into the winter snow and the next thing you know, BOOM! You get an explosive geyser, and all because some hypocrite liberal pretends to be a vegan and still sneaks a Big Mac after working at the solar paneling store, whereas what he should have been doing was protesting on the hood of his Suburban about how much we need that Keystone Pipeline XL because XL stands for extra large, just the way the best things in Texas do. If we don't pump 700,000 more gallons of Texas tea into the Alamo state every day, more and more cows and porkers are going to be needed to offset the loss in revenue.
Question: What is the Keystone XL Pipeline? I know you explained it earlier, but I want to be clear on this.
Answer: That's all right. Clarity is a good thing, unless it's too clear. Then it's a bad thing. The Keystone oil pipeline system is designed to carry up to 830,000 barrels of petroleum per day from the oil sands of boreal forests in western Canada to oil refineries and ports on the Gulf Coast. About half of the system is already built, as I said earlier. Maybe think of the pipeline that's already built as the Keystone SML. This includes pipeline that runs east from Alberta and south through North Dakota, South Dakota and Nebraska. The State Department is now reviewing a proposed 1,179-mile addition to the pipeline, the Keystone XL, a shortcut that would start in Hardisty, Alberta, and diagonally bisect Montana, South Dakota and Nebraska. From Steele City, Nebraska., the addition would connect to existing pipelines to the Gulf Coast. Cool, huh?
Question: Who wants to build the XL version?
Answer: On paper, the answer is that a Canadian company TransCanada initially proposed the pipeline in 2005 and applied to the United States State Department for a construction permit in 2008. You know what else happened in 2008? Barack Obama got himself elected President. I think maybe now you see the snag.
Question: Why is there so much debate over this XL thing?
Answer: Thousands of miles of oil and gas pipelines crisscross their merry way across Canada and the United States, but the XL is the only one the enviro-liberals have got their panties in a bunch about. Those business-hating tree-huggers object to the XL because they claim the pipeline would create a conduit to market for petroleum extracted from the Alberta oil sands, an energy source requiring far more fuel, water and carbon emissions to extract than conventional oil and gas. And here's how silly that is. Back in the 1970s, the same picky-Euny textbook-lovers claimed that it cost more energy to keep a nuclear power plant operational than the amount a nuke actually produced. Well, it turned out that was true, but there's a big difference between an atomic plant and an oil pipeline. The stooges of the Save the Whale movement also get upset because they claim that a leak from a pipeline carrying the heavy oil-sands petroleum could cause more environmental damage than a leak from a standard oil pipeline. I guess those whiners haven't heard of prophylactic measures. I mean, have you seen that commercial where the guy in the hardhat is hanging from a steel beam and the only thing holding him in place is Super Glue? Listen, if American ingenuity can keep a member of the labor force from falling six inches to his death, then we can certainly plug a few leaks in a multi-billion dollar oil line.
Question: I like the idea of the pipeline myself. But I have a couple relatives who think it's the work of the devil. What should I tell them to let them know how wrong they are?
Answer: I think we can all agree that what this country needs now is good jobs for good people. The pipeline would be a job creator, although most of those jobs would be temporary. That's because the good people are outnumbered by the bad. According to the State Department environmental review, the Keystone will support 42,000 temporary jobs over its two-year construction period — about 3,900 of them in construction, the rest in indirect support jobs, such as food service. It estimated that it would create about 35 permanent jobs. Well, figure what those people in the State Department are up to and you can pretty much reverse those numbers. About 35 temporary jobs will be made expendable. That will take care of the lazy bums who didn't want to work anyway. That still leaves 42,000 full time jobs for the people of North Dakota and Montana and Nebraska. The same State Department admits that building the pipeline will contribute about $3.4 billion to the American economy.
Question: Will blocking the Keystone XL pipeline help stop climate change?
Answer: You need some learning, fella. First off, there is no such thing as climate change, but if there were, it would not be because of human beings, and even if it were caused by human beings, it would be worth the trade off because most people don't want to have to go back to digging with a stick and think of that as high-tech stuff. Way back in 2011 the global economy spat out 32.6 billion metric tons of carbon pollution. Our part of that collective saliva came to 5.5 billion tons (coming in second to China, which emitted 8.7 billion tons). Within the United States, electric power plants produced 2.8 billion tons of those greenhouse gases. Of course, the real reason they call all those nasty chemicals "greenhouse" gases is because they are produced by trees, just the way President Ronald Wilson Reagan said they were. "Trees cause pollution, trees are green, green is bad." If it's good enough for the Gipper, it ought to be good enough for the rest of us.
Question: So what does Obama think about all of this?
Answer: Members of the tribunal close to King Obama say that he is committed to building a climate dynasty. Apparently, he does not see the pipeline as a central part of that dynasty. Instead, the president is moving forward with a set of E.P.A. regulations on coal-fired power plants, the nation’s largest source of greenhouse gas emissions.