arizona1 my mention of Keystone was in reference to Obama's poll slide, not that I am a proponent but that kind of decision is usually complicated. Part of the reason the pipeline to Canada was defeated (so far) may be to protect the sale of crude oil being currently developed in North Dakota or other States. Canada says - So long as you're going to import crude oil, why from Venezuela and the Middle East. Instead import more from Canada. I would prefer North American oil but as I said we need to develop all feasable sources to become more energy independent. I don't mean the Government, which has proven again and again to be awful investors - prone to crony waste of our borrowed money. Natural Gas is going to be part of the solution. Wind is close to being competitive but it does not make sense to subsidise (toss money down a hole) technologies that will not be cost effective.
The Keystone pipeline defeat would make sense if we’re reaching a time when America’s dependence on all foreign oil will be reduced or even eliminated. If we’re about to produce all or most of our own energy domestically, we won’t need pipelines to Canada or shipping lines to South America and the Middle East. Thus, it’s conceivable that But so long as America is destined to remain dependent on the import of foreign oil, defeating the Keystone pipeline was irrational and contrary our interests.
President Obama's problem is no energy policy due to pressure from the hard core environmental left.
AI
