Alberta premier returns to D.C. to lobby for Keystone pipeline

  • Article by: JOHN M. BRODER , New York Times
  • Updated: April 9, 2013 - 9:48 PM

As ad campaigns gear up, Alison Redford made her fourth trip in 18 months.

  • 7
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
  • 1 - 7 of 7
adliblogApr. 9, 1310:42 PM

She said the critics’ central argument — that without the pipeline Alberta’s oil would remain in the ground — is unrealistic. “We’re an exporting ­economy,” she said, insisting that the billions of barrels of heavy crude known as bitumen embedded in tarlike formations will be exploited with or without the pipeline. “Alberta does have other options,” she said, including pipeline or overland transport to the coasts or even to the Arctic Ocean. **** Heard the NPR interview. When queried about the intractible problems or tar sand oil cleanup from pipeline ruptures in Michigan and more recently in Arkansas Alison Redford pretty much said these things happen and that tar sands oil cleanup is no more a problem than ordinary oil spills. I take such minimizing as a baseline for her credibility. But she seems to be saying this stuff will get piped north east or west if not south. I guess if its inevitable then better not to pollute the great lakes or arctic tundra and as long as the pipeline doesn't cross our own backyard let it travel the path of least political resistance. Black gold blackmails when money talks and pays us to look the other way.

4
2
fisherdad1956Apr. 10, 13 6:55 AM

The critics of the pipeline would rather have us buy our oil from the Mideast. How shortsighted is that.

3
6
davehougApr. 10, 13 7:00 AM

"I don't like what using tar sands for energy does to the environment" Very valid point. Gas fracking is kinder to environment. BUT unless you own the stuff, your vote won't stop the sale. Railroads or Artic Ocean, the owner gets to sell.

1
1
lakeelmo99Apr. 10, 13 7:51 AM

This is a gift to Canada allowing them to cheaply get their oil onto the world market which they don't do today. There is no benefit to the US only risk. Didn't you guys see last week's oil spill in Mayflower Arkansas from an Exxon pipeline? Those houses have no value now. It's incredible.

3
1
mark44Apr. 10, 13 8:23 AM

fisherdad1956 - The critics of the pipeline would rather have us buy our oil from the Mideast. How shortsighted is that." You couldn't be more ignorant of the facts. None of the pipeline oil would be for US consumption...none. It is all going to the world market, most likely ending up in Asia. Currently, the oil is refined and sold for US consumption, because we are their only viable, cost effective market w/o the pipeline. Ironically, supporters of the pipeline think it will decrease gas prices in the US, but it will actually increase prices as the pipeline would expand their market instead of being 'forced' to sell only in the US.

3
1
evldedApr. 10, 13 8:38 AM

The critics of the pipeline would rather have us buy our oil from the Mideast. How shortsighted is that. - Such an uninformed comment from top to bottom. Do some research other than your daily dose of Rush, and get back to us. Jeez.

2
1
acctsah2Apr. 10, 1310:22 AM

The title of the article should read premier returning to D.C. to beg US to take money and jobs from Cananda.

0
1
  • 1 - 7 of 7

Comment on this story   |  

ADVERTISEMENT

Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT