Guest Column: Obama Got It Wrong on Keystone XL
America was dealt a devastating blow by our “Dear Leader.” With the flick of his pen, President Obama killed 20,000 construction jobs, destroyed at least $7 billion in new investment, committed the U.S. to sending $36 billion a year to hostile dictatorships like Venezuela for years to come, and set the wheels in motion to send China almost 1 million barrels of North American oil every day.
The president’s decision to kill the Keystone XL pipeline had all of these effects. The most immediate effect was to kill off 20,000 construction jobs financed with private money ...
Comments (73)
D W
not sure why we need more oil now. demand for gas has been collapsing in the last few years. the only reason gas prices are up is the hype about Iran and what it might do. not what its likely to really do *since it has 'threatened' to do what the hype has said before. many times in fact. and all of the jobs that some think it will create? maybe nothing more than a mirage or wishful thinking. at best
tthomas48
I find this to be a really complex topic and was hoping to be informed, so was Barry Smitherman really the best person you could get to present this viewpoint? His opinion piece reads like the sort of poorly written comment you would expect to find on Luke Metzger's piece.
Kirk Holden
Get a clown to write a 'false equivalence' rant and you will get the HuffPo award for the most unjournalistic journalism. There is no way I am going to read this heap of words...
albert jaramillo
Did you notice on a map that the pipeline goes right through "Tornado Alley" - Can you guarantee that it will survive 250 mph winds and tornadoes? Do we need another oil spill all over the American Plains? Recall that the Alaska pipeline and other pipelines all have their problems. Can you get the Oil companies to pay for those spills as I don’t think the American Taxpayer should have to clean up that mess? Your Texas republican Congressional fiends cut back on supporting FEMA and your Texas republican friends in the legislature also cut back on supporting firefighters - where is the money going to come from when the pipeline burns out of control??
T D
Is the "Dear Leader" crack meant to analogize Obama to Kim Jong Il?
I stopped reading at that phrase, Mr. Smitherman (which is not what you want from a column that seeks to persuade).
namoyer
A revised permit application showing new routing thru Nebraska is being prepared for submission. Regardless, Kinder Morgan are expanding their pipeline to Burnaby BC to deliver tar sands oil to USA W.Coast refineries. Saudis will be delivering their heavy crude to their expanded Motiva refinery in Port Arthur soon. Newly fracked USA crude is landing at our refineries daily. While 10% of our refineries' gasoline production is being displaced by ethanol from midwest corn refineries. USA refiners are shipping more diesel to Europe and elsewhere. The XL pipeline is essentially a red herring. The canadian tar sands will continue to be exploited, whether Robert Redford likes it or not.
Bologna Vest
"Is the "Dear Leader" crack meant to analogize Obama to Kim Jong Il? I stopped reading at that phrase, Mr. Smitherman (which is not what you want from a column that seeks to persuade)."
This.
And when the GOP in DC announced their intention to force his hand, it was obvious to everyone that there would not be enough time to re-route the pipeline around the Nebraska sandhills and still get the project approved by the end of February. This is why TransCanada themselves opposed the deadline.
If they'd been smart about it, they could have given him a 180 or 300 day deadline which would have permitted time for the proposal to be amended, would have given the GOP more time to beat up Obama for inaction, and would have forced a decision in advance of the election. As it stands now, the demand is still there, but it may get picked up by other pipeline companies as TransCanada customers defect to companies that can serve their needs more immediately.
Marc Lippincott via Texas Tribune on Facebook
U still mad, Big Oil Bro?
Todd Ramsell via Texas Tribune on Facebook
The GOP killed it. Their fault. http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/01/the-gops-costly-keystone-conundrum.php?ref=fpnewsfeed
Rex Curry via Texas Tribune on Facebook
The pipeline would have robbed thousands of people of their property rights and continued our independence on fossil fuels when we should be investing in alternatives.
Alicia Butler via Texas Tribune on Facebook
You are more than welcome to go live in the alternate universe where the pipeline is built, people enjoy their 3-year construction jobs and hit the unemployment lines again, and we then have to deal with the contamination of one of the largest shallow acquifers in the world...
Anti-Claire Fletcher via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Butthurt much? Need Desitin, Mr. Smitherman? Dang, you know, if the GOP hadn't forced a decision before the report, we Dems might be the ones who are experiencing a bad case of red-ass now. Thanks for saving us!
Michael Tex Duncan via Texas Tribune on Facebook
I am quite disappointed in the Trib for posting this. The Trib is a great source of fact-based reporting and thoughtful commentary, but this screed reads like it was pulled from the comment section, edited up, and put out there with the Trib's imprimatur.
Smitherman does his best to avoid the facts of the pipeline's proposal and subsequent legally imposed deadline. Instead he seeks to not so subtly fall back on ridiculous partisan crutches. Not a single one of his eight paragraphs fails to tie Mr. Obama or the deliberative process to dictators, communism, Hollywood, occupy Wall Street, or childishness.
This was better left as a comment.
Richard Stone via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Plus, it would be different if all that oil had been destined for US gasoline tanks ... nope, most of it would have been exported.
Anthony Zurcher via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Funny thing is the creation of the pipeline would have caused gas prices to go _up_ in the Midwest. Proponents never seem to mention that.
Karen Spivey-Cummings via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Alicia, I agree.
Rita Lucido via Texas Tribune on Facebook
I was going to leave a comment, but all those above said it for me. I believe the word is "ditto".
Pamela Bedell Nelson via Texas Tribune on Facebook
I did enjoy the part where the environmentalist joined the Occupy Movement and circled the White House and he changed his mind.
Merryl Redding via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Robbed property??? What kool-aide have you been drinking. The proposed line follows lines for the most part that are already in service.
Rick Scott McGuckin via Texas Tribune on Facebook
The bulk of the dirty oil will be exported; this helps Canada and Big Oil only, and in exchange we get more spills and a few jobs?
Allen Michie via Texas Tribune on Facebook
He lost me at "Dear Leader."
Cody Yocom via Texas Tribune on Facebook
In case you wondered where I stopped reading, it was at "Dear Leader". I'm actually a D who isn't opposed to all things oil. I figure that we have to be pragmatic and jobs do matter. But the fact that you decided to write an opinion using "ass clown" purposeful word choice makes me think that anything else that you had to say was moot. Just in case you wondered.
Rex Curry via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Merryl, the pipeline would have run through land farmers, ranchers and others. I photographed people in Texas who were threatened to have their property seized by eminent 8 months ago, well before the decision came down.
Jeff Davis via Texas Tribune on Facebook
I stop reading or listening when they say ''Democrat Party,'' instead of Democratic. It's code for ''I'm a Glenn-Beck-sheep-Republican without a mind of my own. Listen to me.''
Kathy Kennemer Genet via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Ditto all of the above for me. I'm on quite a few Facebook subscriptions for a variety of political viewpoints. This is the first time for the Tribune to confuse me as to who is saying the words. It's not an editorial from one of your staff, it's a guest columnist, right? I think it would have been more clear to credit him on the part of the text in black letters (the status update??). If you aren't going to fact check his claims, he can basically spout off anything, or omit any relevant facts as all the commenters above me have pointed out -- as it stands the TT seems to be presenting this as fact.
Carlyn Short via Texas Tribune on Facebook
WTF?
Lee B. Weaver via Texas Tribune on Facebook
"Dear Leader"? Seriously? Desperate much, Smithers? How are we supposed to take ANYONE seriously who opens with a playground insult like that?
To be clear, I did not read another word.
Fail.
Diane Holloway via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Bullshit.
Debbie Spencer via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Interesting. Two guest columns, one pro and one against. I like that kind of reporting. Let both sides have their say in the same issue.
Devin Giddens via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Actually Big Oil will be just fine. This helps keep the price up. It helps Little Oil, too, so thanks, guys!
Leo Tynan via Texas Tribune on Facebook
"dear leader"? Smitherman is a hot headed egomaniac (see chairmanship of PUC). If he had any objective, halfway intelligent points to make, they were smothered in his partisan, self serving vitriol. Too bad he soiled your virtual pages with his palpably real and nauseating BS.
Devin Giddens via Texas Tribune on Facebook
In reality, it won't make any difference. The US consumes 19 million barrels of oil a day, and this would merely have supplied a million barrels of it. Still, I'd rather send my money to Canada than the Saudis. Canada will just ship it to China or some other large consumer. Of course, sending oil by ship isn't the best thing for the environment, either.
Devin Giddens via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Of course, Smitherman knows his audience, so most of his readers think the gratuitous Kim Jong Il reference is comedy gold, I'm sure.
Debbie Spencer via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Please note that I am not for the pipeline. I just would rather see balanced reporting and commentary. However, that being said, it would be nice if there was an editorial on both articles that contained the results of a fact checker.
Paul Lynam
First of all, it's 6,000 construction jobs for a two-year period, not 20,000 construction jobs. Even the sponsors of the pipeline agree on that.
Second, this pipeline will initially displace imported low-grade oil (probably from Venezuela and Colombia) that is refined into diesel and residual, then exported (principally to Mexico). The only money the U.S. will make off it it's already making by doing the refining. This will actually REDUCE employment in Houston, since the tankers will no longer be offloading Venezuelan crude.
Third, due to the high quantity of solids in this crude, there will be a tremendous disposal problem for the solids left over from refining. What is the plan for that?
And, finally, as others have pointed out, this could actually increase gasoline prices in the Midwest by improving the export capacity from North Dakota and West Texas, thus reducing the price differential between the East and Midwest refiners, potentially leading to the shutdown of Midwestern refineries.
I understand that many of them have employees who would be laid off if the refineries closed (snark intended).
However, Kinder Morgan stands to make a lot of money off of the deal, since it has terminals at the Port of Houston that would handle much of the crude as it comes into the area and as it leaves as refined products.
Paul Palmer via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Dear Leader? Is that really a reference to Korea? If you don't realize that it is, you're badly informed. If you do, SHAME on you for daring something like that. Your argument must be very week to take a jab like that. You're hideous.
Paul Palmer via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Dear Leader? Is that really a reference to Korea? If you don't realize that it is, you're badly informed. If you do, SHAME on you for daring something like that. Your argument must be very weak to take a jab like that. You're hideous.
Dennis Dismuke via Texas Tribune on Facebook
What's wrong with pipelines? I have a couple running to my residence.
Dennis Dismuke via Texas Tribune on Facebook
I wish they could send my groceries through a pipeline, that would be cool.
Devin Giddens via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Not much, really. The Alaska Pipeline is almost identical to this one, in a far more environmentally sensitive area. There have been no major environmental problems there. We currently have about 22 million miles of pipelines in the US right now. This is just the latest green hobbyhorse.
Leigh Williams via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Tell that to the Republican governor of Nebraska, who would not accept the current route. The state refused to sign off on it. The new proposed route is not available yet, which is the reason the plan cannot be approved -- it's not complete.
Leigh Williams via Texas Tribune on Facebook
I know the pros and cons of the pipeline; my conservative friends and I have debated it at length. I didn't read this screed, however. Like everyone else, I saw "Dear Leader" and said to myself, no point in reading what this asshat has to say.
Devin Giddens via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Not much, really. The Alaska Pipeline is almost identical to this one, in a far more environmentally sensitive area. There have been no major environmental problems there. We currently have about 2.2 million miles of pipelines in the US right now. This is just the latest green hobbyhorse.
Rodney Marsden via Texas Tribune on Facebook
^^^^This guy works for an oil company!!!
Devin Giddens via Texas Tribune on Facebook
^^^^This guy's a hippy redneck!
Devin Giddens via Texas Tribune on Facebook
As I pointed out earlier, if the price stays high per Obama's policies, I make more money. So I really can't lose here.
Larry Hayles via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Devin. other than being a pipeline no they are not the same thing. What is going to be pumped through the Keystone is more corrosive, more toxic, more damaging than what flows through Alaska.
Thomas P Carnes via Texas Tribune on Facebook
It is disappointing that the Chairman of our Public Utilities Commission would write such a piece, but not very surprising. Mr. Smitherman generally thinks he is the smartest man in the room, and if you disagree with him he will use his bully pulpit to publicly humiliate you -- which he can because no one else in the room wants to be you.
William Michael Smith via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Guy's a typical get it wrong GOP idiot. Republicans made this inevitable. Politics -- and lying liars -- as usual. Smitherman Ditherman.... wanker.
Dennis Dismuke via Texas Tribune on Facebook
If there was that much difference they wouldn't refine it in the same refineries. I've worked in the oilfield and seen all kinds of oil, none of it is "clean" lol. The most corrosive has Hydrogen Sulfide gas in it, and is in Texas and Oklahoma.
Scott Nicol via Texas Tribune on Facebook
when it starts off with the "dear leader" communisit boogeyman garbage, there's no need to read the rest of the column
Devin Giddens via Texas Tribune on Facebook
The oil is identical once it has been extracted. It's the extraction process that is dirty compared to the oil we're used to seeing. You can't run tar sand through a pipeline. It would be extracted in Canada, where they will have to deal with the clean up whether it gets shipped to China or the U.S. The one thing that would make the tar sand oil unprofitable is for the price of oil to go down. You're not going to see that with the current administration continually looking for ways to raise prices, presumably to get people to use less energy.
Rodney Marsden via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Dennis, do you have a PhD in Oilanology?
Devin Giddens via Texas Tribune on Facebook
I'd be willing to bet he's more knowledgeable than about 95% of our commentariat.
Dennis Dismuke via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Most of them never crude up close, and I've been pretty crude all my life.
Dennis Dismuke via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Seen crude
Devin Giddens via Texas Tribune on Facebook
We'll accept "been pretty crude." :)
Devin Giddens via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Heck, it's the Canadians that should be mad. Mining for oil is a nasty business.
Philip Welsh via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Can we please get the facts straight? Even the Canadians don't support 20,000 jobs. Facts are that direct jobs once it is built would be in the tens to low hundreds. During the build process, possibly 6500 jobs, full time, at any one time. Don't make me sorry for supporting the TT as my support could be pulled at any time.
Leon Drozd
Not very persuasive in terms of environmental impact.
Pumps Sullivan via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Isn't the proposed pipeline about bringing the tar sand crude to the refineries in the US, over the Ogalalla Aquifer? So can you explain how it will be clean oil?
JC DemocratofTejas
wrong smitherman. racist 1%er.
JC DemocratofTejas
what kind of name is devin, and why do I have to keep seeing it? Oh, I don't. hahahahaha oilman propoganda racist whiner.
Wilkins Micawber
Well, the main take-away point of this opinion piece is that Barry Smitherman is a jackass.
I did not know that until he brayed.
Randall Ryan
Lost in both this editorial and the comments is the reality of what this oil does and does not mean. It would mean revenue for the refineries that would process the crude. It would mean temporary construction jobs and some (though the number is unclear and unlikely to be significant) longer-term maintenance positions. It would mean increased tax revenue for Texas.
More importantly, though, is what it would not mean: it would not mean increased energy security. Just because the oil is refined here doesn't mean it's sold here. That's simply not the way the oil market works. American crude doesn't necessarily stay in America, so why would Canadian crude?
This is a refining project, not an oil security project. It would be a good deal for TransCanada and for the refineries that get the work. TransCanada can choose to sell it to whoever it pleases for whatever reasons it pleases. It's no different than a Toyota factory in San Antonio. It means work for those in the plant, but it still isn't an American car.
Dale Curry
Of course Barry Slitther-man here is not telling you the truth. He forgot to mention that Nevada has objected to the pipeline due to concerns of it's potential impact to a very important aquifer. Trans Canada has agreed to modify the pipeline to address their concerns. However, in a bitter partisan move designed to create an issue and prevent the President from supporting this pipeline, the US Congress (controlled by republicans) imposed a mandatory deadline.
Their fault, their lies. So Barry, why don't you sleaze your way back to whatever hole you crawled out of. You are lying to the public.
mary westemeier
Save your fresh, hot, propaganda. Our "Dear Leader" didn't kill the Keystone Pipeline.
He just REFUSED to meet an arbitrary deadline set by GOP and Texas Opportunists, that don't respect States Rights (unless it only applies to Texas States Rights).
The state of Nebraska asked for time to study the route, its effect on THEIR state, and to possibly propose a different route thru Nebraska. The Obama State Department (which does recognize ALL states rights), agreed.
So you see, Obama didn't KILL the pipeline, we will just get a BETTER one. In this era of post-BP/Gulf of Mexico Disastor, this seems to be a wise idea.
Oh, and the Karl Rovian Republicans can just cool their jets. The "originalist" for "don't waste a good crisis", needs to find a new one.
John Burton via Texas Tribune on Facebook
"Barry Smitherman is a Texas railroad commissioner and a former member of the state's Public Utility Commission."
^^This is the scariest part of the article.
Obviously selected for his partisan loyalty, not intelligence in presenting points like an adult.
David Spratt
Never fear , it probably cannot be built. Our great leader likes to speak on the fact that we built the Hoover Dam , built in 5 years,,,,,,, The Golden Gate Bridge,, built in 4 years. WWII was fought and decisively won in 3 years 8 months. We started from nothing and went to the Moon in less than 10 years. The Keystone has been studied for over 3 years, and they want more time. It generally takes from 5 to 10 years to study,permit and start to drill offshore.If true , it could be built in 18 months ,,,,,, half as long as it has been studied already. And people wonder why we cannot be competitive in today's world. This country has done countless grand things in it's time beyond ordinary expectations. We send rovers to Mars and drive them around but cannot build a pipeline accross flat ground ,,,, go figure.
mary westemeier
David, we built offshore rigs for years to crack the earth's crust and pump out oil. Not many failed - and many that did fail, happened when businesses were left to "regulate and police itself". Stock prices, Wall Street, and greed got in the way of safety (for both people and the earth).
In an era post-BP/Gulf of Mexico Disastor....time to step up and put back the safeguards since CEO's dont' like 'em.
The pipeline will be built. It will create the 5,000 jobs the contractors-on-bid propose, it will take oil from Canada, and run it down to the Gulf Coast where it will be exported to foreign countries using OPEC prices to make fat profits for Big Oil. Very little of this oil will ACTUALLY be used for Americans on American soil. The gasoline produced from this oil will be used here, and the rest exported overseas, including Iran (Big Oil can't miss out on ALL market places).
And WHEN (not if) the pipeline fails (usually due to operator/management errors or cost cutting shortcuts), then we will get those 20,000 jobs proposed. All in crew-up crews, hazmet people, and recovery teams for the land and states damaged.
As it is said in Ecclesiastes 1:9 -
What has been, will be again -
What has been done, will be done again,
There is nothing new under the sun.
Dale Curry
When David tells you that we have had 3 years to study the pipeline, it is more GOP attempts to mislead and distort the facts to fit their agenda. Nebraska (remember state's rights) had what I viewed as legitimate concerns about the route of this pipeline over a very important acquifer. Trans Canda has agreed to develop a new route. It was our GOP theocrats in Congress who imposed an arbitrary deadline for the President's approval. Why? They don't want the pipeline either, it's much more beneficial to the GOP to have it as an issue than to benefit the nation. From Limbaugh calling for opposition to this President on any issue, to the debt ceiling debacle, to apologizing to BP for requiring the company to clean up their mess, to the Keystone Pipeline; the Tparty fanatics are all too willing to sacrifice the good of the nation to ensure this President is not successful.
David McFatridge
Why do I keep hearing the same old reasons?
We need the pipeline for jobs.
We need the pipeline for energy independence.
JOBS to be created 3,000 to 4,000 not nearly the 20,000 stated:
Cornell GLI Study Finds Keystone XL Pipeline Will Create Few Jobs
http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/globallaborinstitute/research/Keystonexl.html
ENERGY INDEPENDENCE
In a first, gas and other fuels are top U.S. export , we export more than we import- that sounds independent to me.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/story/2011-12-31/united-states-export/52298812/1
Mark Wilder
Certainly there is no candidate worse for Texas. At the Public Utility Commission Smitherman changed the PUC culture from one protecting consumers to one protecting the regulated utilities at every turn. Smitherman has no respect for the PUC's rules and the laws of the state of Texas. Now he runs for Railroad Commissioner where he will again cast his vote for the regulated industry who has supported his campaigns. He has his eyes on being Governor of Texas. I'm a republican and I will never vote for Smitherman (because I know him).