From Senator Charles Grassley –
Q: Why do you support the Keystone XL Pipeline?
A: The crude oil pipeline from Canada to the U.S. Gulf Coast called the Keystone XL pipeline would provide 830,000 barrels of crude oil a day and help to counteract insufficient domestic oil supplies and reduce America’s dependence on less reliable foreign sources. The way I see it, the energy and economic development benefits of this pipeline are too important to delay any longer. Keystone XL contributes to a necessary, three-pronged approach for America’s energy policy. We need to develop traditional oil and gas resources in America. We need development, production and use of alternative renewable fuels. We need to conserve energy. What’s needed now is an increased supply of oil. The Keystone XL pipeline would help maintain adequate crude oil supplies for U.S. refineries and let us decrease dependence on foreign crude oil supplies from the Persian Gulf and Venezuela.
Q: What have you done to advance this pipeline?
A: In March, I voted for an amendment offered by Senator John Hoeven to the Senate budget resolution. The amendment expressed support for the approval and construction of the pipeline and passed with a bipartisan vote of 62 to 37. It was mostly a symbolic vote because the budget resolution does not become law and isn’t binding. But the vote demonstrates strong support within the Senate for approval of the Keystone XL pipeline.
Q: How has President Obama delayed the Keystone XL?
A: Authority for siting oil pipelines generally lies with the states, but the construction of facilities at the U.S. border for exporting or importing petroleum or other fuels requires a Presidential Permit issued by the Department of State. In this case, consideration has been drawn out, most likely to try to stop the pipeline from being built. In 2008, TransCanada applied for a presidential permit from the State Department to construct and operate the pipeline. In January 2012, the State Department recommended that the Presidential permit be denied. The same day, the President stated his determination that the Keystone XL pipeline project would not serve the national interest. This year, in January, the Governor of Nebraska approved a proposed reroute of the Keystone XL pipeline to avoid the Sand Hills due to the area’s unique soil properties. So, TransCanada reapplied to the State Department in May 2012, along the new route through Nebraska. This year, in March, the State Department released a draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) on the new Presidential permit application. The report basically found that the pipeline would not accelerate greenhouse gas emissions or significantly harm the environment along its route. A final decision from the State Department and the Obama Administration on whether to grant the Presidential permit is expected after expiration of the comment period for the draft SEIS at the end of this month.
It’s a good thing Susan Rice got dumped as Sec of State because she owns hundreds of thousands of dollars of stock in Trans Canada Tar Sands. I bet the Dems would be approving Keystone had she been chosen as Sec of State.
Stupid/sick has no concept of economics. Jobs are jobs and America should always come first.
The XL Pipeline is nothing new for America. There are pipelines buried all over this country used for all our benefit.
Some people are hell bent on destroying the American dream.
Stupid is one of them!
Build the Pipeline!!!
Any time North America can add barrels of oil to the global market you will have poorer middle eastern countries, which means less money to fund the cowardly jihadist. This is a no brainer. What’s your nationality sickas?
@Anonymous-Sicka’s nationality is communist, and is against anything that is real American.
Somebody is going to use that oil. China is going to burn it if not the United States.
Sooooooooooo, pollution is pollution no matter where it is used on this planet.
Why wouldn’t you build the pipeline to America where we can better manage it, scrub it to protect our planet, and hopefully lower our costs at the pump.
Oh gee, how about the jobs it creates in America?
Duh! This a no brainier.
This oil is being sent to Texas to refineries in order to process it and sell it overseas. Not one drop of this Canadian oil will be used in this country. And the high risk, low job growth and potentially devastating effects on our water in the midwest are the no-brainer reasons to block this.
Refinery jobs will be created here in US. There is a world market for product and the refiner should be able to maximize his return. The “potentially devastating effects on our water in the Midwest” is a straw man argument not supported at all by fact – which resulted in the ludicrous blocking of this project.
Approval will yield positive results for the US and our neighbor Canada.
Yeah, the pipeline rupture in Arkansas is just a bad dream right?
so what there was a rupture? It is being fixed and everyone who is affected will be compensated.
Accidents happen everyday and to use this kind of stupid example lends nothing to the American progress and oil independence.