Your Community

Reaction to the U.S. government rejection of Keystone XL pipeline

Categories: Community

The Obama administration's decision to deny the application to build the Keystone XL pipeline brought out a strong reaction on Twitter and equally so from the CBC Community in our comments.

Demonstrators call for the cancellation of the Keystone XL pipeline during a rally in front of the White House on Nov. 6, 2011.Demonstrators call for the cancellation of the Keystone XL pipeline during a rally in front of the White House on Nov. 6, 2011. (Joshua Roberts/Reuters)Between Wednesday's story about the decision and Thursday's about the debate in the U.S. there are nearly 3,000 comments on the topic as of Thursday afternoon.

  • "I hope the people in the U.S. keep fighting this Keystone pipeline. We have a government that wastes millions of our tax dollars fighting in the U.S. to have this crap pipeline built, and in Canada this very same government wants to stop people from other countries having any say on the pipeline they want to build to the BC coast," wrote middle-of-pack.

  • "Harper is right. We have to diversify and consider other options. Alberta cannot be landlocked and prevented from exporting its resources by another country. While I prefer to refine right in Alberta, those opposed to any pipeline apparently prefer to have thousands of trucks and rail cars flying past their bedroom windows at all hours. The product is going to move anyway. Even if refined in Alberta, the end product is still going to be shipped. The most logical, cost effective and safest means is obviously preferred. That is by pipeline," wrote RedDogAB.

  • "They wanted to run a crude oil pipeline over top of fresh drinking water... drinking water that millions of people depend on. One spill and that's all she wrote," wrote Kent_Brockman. "The pipeline can (and will) be moved and it will still be built. Had TransCanada just worked around the aquifer in the first place, this wouldn't even be an issue."

  • "The issue isn't and never has been about the environmental impact of the pipeline. There are already thousands of kilometres of pipe crossing that aquifer. This pipe will have more integrity than any of them. For the environmentalists it is purely about the oilsands and for Obama it is purely about retaining his voter base. The aquifer is a red herring," replied do_something.

Some of the opposition to the pipeline didn't come from the usual suspects.

  • "I work in Alberta in the oil and gas industry and I am against the pipeline going to the U.S. I spent three years at Scotford working on the upgrader, and that is where the real long term jobs are, upgrading and refining. I wonder why Harper's government and the Alberta government are all so fired up to help create U.S. jobs and free the U.S. from foreign oil while we still import foreign oil ourselves. Put Canada first, build the pipeline to the east, do the upgrading in Alberta, refining in the east, (or some combo) and sell the finished product," wrote thepro52.

Many in the CBC Community commented on the politics of the decision, coming as it did in a U.S. election year.

  • "If Obama is re-elected in November, he will go ahead with the pipeline. If Obama loses, the Republicans will build it. Obama is catering to his Hollywood friends and the Greens for campaign contributions," said Mavroi.

  • "Obama did the only thing he could do. The Republicans set him up. Yes, the project needs to be approved for the sake of the economy, but you can't approve something like this without a thorough review. The deadline was set too short by the Republicans for a reason; either they get what they want and get to blame the president if there is an environmental disaster, or the president blocks the project, for now, because of environmental concerns and they get to say he doesn't care about the economy," wrote Highway Star.

Thank you for all your comments.

Tags: energy

Comments are closed.