Campaign Season and the TransCanada Pipeline (updated)

Why is it called TransCanada, when it crosses more of the US than it does Canada? (Oh, that's the company name.  Let's get back to the point...)

As the US shelves the TransCanada project, we ask if the real reason is environmental concerns or a political ploy.

  alJazeera

Gee…give me a minute.

Obama decided to hold off making a decision until after the 2012 election, but Republicans forced him to make quicker decision.

On Wednesday, the US State Department rejected the application on the grounds that it could not be adequately reviewed within the 60-day deadline set by the US Congress.

TransCanada says it will apply for a new permit to build along a similar route.

Which will no doubt be just hunky dory with President #Compromise.

As the State Department made clear last month, the rushed and arbitrary deadline insisted on by Congressional Republicans prevented a full assessment of the pipeline’s impact, especially the health and safety of the American people, as well as our environment. As a result, the Secretary of State has recommended that the application be denied. And after reviewing the State Department’s report, I agree.

This announcement is not a judgment on the merits of the pipeline, but the arbitrary nature of a deadline that prevented the State Department from gathering the information necessary to approve the project and protect the American people.

  Think Progress

I have to admit that when my kids were at home and asked for permission to do something that I wasn’t sure about, I always told them that if they insisted on an immediate answer, it was “no”, but if they gave me time to think about it, and presented their reasons and arguments, it might be “yes”. But in this case, I’m pretty sure President #Compromise has always been intending a “yes” on the pipeline. The protests were in the way, not the Republicans. And his reputation for always giving in to the GOP needed some whitewashing now that it’s campaign season.

You’re not right if you think I will never give him any credit for anything he does. Let’s just wait and see what he does about the pipeline in the final call. I think it’s rather ridiculous that we’re talking about using even dirtier energy than we already do because we weren’t happy paying high prices for Middle Eastern countries’ oil, but we’ll cripple our economy waging war on them.

And of lesser concern to me, since we already have a similar pipeline in place, why does the existing pipeline follow the path that it does, and why is the extension route necessary?  What was different about the impact on Americans from the first pipeline that made this administration ask for more time to think about it?  Was there no study done then?  Is it merely a matter of location?  They talk about the Ogalala Aquifer in this decision.  The existing line crosses into the aquifer already. (That's the aquifer in the second graphic.)  The decision is entirely political.



Another point of interest...I recognize that a huge number of oil refineries are at the Texas Gulf, but why the need for the upper portion of the pipeline, other than to cut distance, and if that's important, why not a pipeline to the refineries in California and totally avoid the aquifer?  I'm sure there are answers.  And I'm sure most will be political.  (I bet you couldn't buy California's agreement to run that thing through their state.)




...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.