• 3 minutes e-car sales collapse
  • 6 minutes America Is Exceptional in Its Political Divide
  • 11 minutes Perovskites, a ‘dirt cheap’ alternative to silicon, just got a lot more efficient
  • 15 hours Could Someone Give Me Insights on the Future of Renewable Energy?
  • 14 hours How Far Have We Really Gotten With Alternative Energy
  • 15 hours "What’s In Store For Europe In 2023?" By the CIA (aka RFE/RL as a ruse to deceive readers)
  • 3 days Bankruptcy in the Industry
  • 6 hours Oil Stocks, Market Direction, Bitcoin, Minerals, Gold, Silver - Technical Trading <--- Chris Vermeulen & Gareth Soloway weigh in
  • 4 days The United States produced more crude oil than any nation, at any time.
Llewellyn King

Llewellyn King

Llewellyn King is the executive producer and host of "White House Chronicle" on PBS. His e-mail address is lking@kingpublishing.com

More Info

Premium Content

Oil Sands Show Obama’s Policy-Making at Its Worst

Oil Sands Show Obama’s Policy-Making at Its Worst

What a mess President Obama makes as he tries to placate both sides of a dispute and comes out looking just inept.

The president’s possible approval of the 2,000-mile-long pipeline from the oil sands (previously known as the tar sands, and most correctly bitumen sands) of Alberta, Canada, to the refineries and shipping terminals of the U.S. Gulf Coast is a tale of political calculation gone sadly wrong. His clumsiness is not helped by a favorable environmental statement issued recently.

In January 2012, the president was expected to give his approval and that of the State Department to what is an international agreement, he punted. Concerned about stout opposition in his own administration, and particularly from his Environmental Protection Administration chief Lisa Jackson, Obama demurred and requested more studies.

This did two things: It antagonized the Canadian people, always sensitive to slights from the United States, and humiliated the government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Joe Oliver, Canada's minister for natural resources, told me on the record just before Obama’s statement that he had had strong indications from the administration that the Keystone XL pipeline would be approved. In the event, he and the Canadian government were outraged and embarrassed.

As though offending our principal trading partner and favorite neighbor was not enough, Obama gave the environmentalists time to mobilize -- a mobilization so complete that it resulted in a demonstration on the Mall in Washington immediately after the president’s second inauguration.

Related article: The US Looks on as Pakistan and Iran Inaugurate Gas Pipeline

Not only did a broad front of environmentalists march against the pipeline but in the year since Obama kicked the can down the road, they extended and codified their objections not just to the pipeline, but also to the exploitation of the oil sands. Obama’s delay has allowed the environmental groups to declare a kind of non-governmental trade war against Canada.

Originally, the environmental movement and its supporters in the administration were concerned with the effects of the pipeline in Nebraska and the threat it would pose to rivers and aquifers in the state. While the company that wants to build the pipeline, TransCanada, has agreed to re-routing and Nebraska Gov. Dave Heineman has signed off on the project, the environmentalists have downplayed the Nebraska issues and concentrated on the whole matter of the exploitation of the oil sands. The Natural Resources Defense Council has called oil-sands oil “the filthiest oil in the world.”

This is a mighty assault on the economy of Alberta and Canada, as 44 percent of Canada’s oil exports come from the oil sands and they are scheduled to keep rising. If it were of less economic consequence, the protests might find more sympathy north of the border than they do. Mining the sands is a monumental undertaking, disturbing enormous tracts of earth and employing trucks and mechanical shovels, which are the largest on the globe. The disturbance to the earth is considerable and worth noting.

Also worth noting are the vast quantities of natural gas and water used in the extraction and retorting of the sands. More greenhouse gases are released in the production of the oil than in regular oil fields; the oil sands extraction is calculated to be the largest contributor to greenhouse gases in Canada.

However, Canadians are sensitive to these issues and are offended by the idea that Canada is a backward country with no regard to the environment. Canada maintains that evolving technology is reducing the impact on the environment year after year. The oil sands are going to be developed no matter what.

Related article: China Set to Become the World’s Largest Oil Importer

There is a pattern of escalation in environmental concerns about big projects. Nuclear power gives a fine historical perspective on this escalation. Back in the 1960s, the first concerns about nuclear power were on the thermal effluent into rivers and streams. This escalated into concern about radiation, then safety, then waste and finally a blanket indictment of the technology.

Bogdan Kipling, who has been writing about Canadian-U.S. relations from Washington for four decades, takes an apocalyptic view of the future U.S.-Canada relations if Obama wavers and does not approve the pipeline. In a recent column, he said that such an action would “decouple” the United States from Canada across a broad range of issues, social a as well as economic. “Such a decision would be sweet music to the ears of Canadian nationalists,” Kipling said.


Now Obama finds himself between the swamp of his own political left and the rock of international relations. It did not have to be like this.

By Llewellyn King

Llewellyn King is executive producer and host of “White House Chronicle” on PBS. His e-mail is lking@kingpublishing.com.

Download The Free Oilprice App Today

Back to homepage

Leave a comment
  • Stephen Malagodi on March 20 2013 said:
    So, the big problem here is Obama ineptitude or intergovernmental relations between Washington and Ottowa?

    The Arctic ice sheet is cracking now, and there are some expectations that it may not survive the summer -this year-.

    Some of our 'leaders' are inept, some cynical, some evil; none upright and courageous. We're supposed to be concerned about amateurish political behavior? We're supposed to be concerned that some Canadians don't like us {the U.S] because of Keystone? A lot of people everywhere don't like us because of actual deadly stuff like the Iraq war, Afghanistan, Cuba and so forth.

    In 100 years, I wonder who will be looking back at Keystone and the greater industrial/energy fiasco and noting "it didn't have to be like this."
  • fosforos on March 20 2013 said:
    who speaks for "Canadians?" They voted by a large majority AGAINST Harper and the present government, which got its "majority" only by the antidemocratic "first past the post" system. If Harper thinks he has support for the environmental devastation implicit in the Alberta Tar Sands scam, why doesn't he just call a new election and ask for a real majority on the issue?
  • ouchosparks on March 20 2013 said:
    First, whether the oil sands are developed is a matter of economics, and inability to reach markets could make the whole enterprise very unattractive to investors. Second, the Great Vaccinator will invariably make the correct corporatist decision. His administration famously declared progressives and leftists to be "fucking retards". Obama is not at all moved by poor environmentalists. Some swamp.
  • cenobite on March 20 2013 said:
    There is a pattern of escalation in environmental concerns about big projects. Nuclear power gives a fine historical perspective on this escalation. Back in the 1960s, the first concerns about nuclear power were on the thermal effluent into rivers and streams. This escalated into concern about radiation, then safety, then waste and finally a blanket indictment of the technology.

    And you write as if this is a BAD THING.

    Like we haven't learned anything about nuclear power that we didn't know when it was still "too cheap to meter" and Edward Teller was trying to use hydrogen bombs to dig harbors in Alaska.

    Three-Mile Island, Chernobyl, Fukushima Daiichi. Hanford. Oak Ridge. Windscale. Environmentalists are right, nuclear power as practiced is manifestly unsafe.
  • RA on March 20 2013 said:
    I'd say this is a misread. Obama was in trouble with his base at the time of the pipeline approval because he was working on cutting entitlements and needed to make sure he could count on the environmental vote. Demoralizing it could have turned the tables for Romney as turnout was considered imperative.

    He played the enviros for a sucker and now is selling them out as anyone could have predicted. Not everything can go perfectly according to plan. He looks bad because he has to constantly dance the jig according to the tune being played at the time.

Leave a comment

EXXON Mobil -0.35
Open57.81 Trading Vol.6.96M Previous Vol.241.7B
BUY 57.15
Sell 57.00
Oilprice - The No. 1 Source for Oil & Energy News