News Sections
Harper 'disappointed' with U.S. pipeline decision
CTV News Video
|
Watch: See all Videos in the Player
CTVNews.ca Staff
Date: Thu. Nov. 10 2011 9:45 PM ET
Prime Minister Stephen Harper is "disappointed" with news that Washington will delay a decision on whether to approve TransCanada's controversial Keystone XL pipeline project.
The U.S. State Department announced in a statement on Thursday that due to "national concern ... the department has determined it is necessary to examine in-depth alternative routes."
Under the current proposal, the pipeline would traverse Nebraska's Sandhills region and an aquifer that's a source of water for several states -- something that has been of particular concern to environmentalists lobbying against the project.
The review could be completed "as early as the first quarter of 2013," the State Department said, which would be months after the next presidential election.
TransCanada's proposed pipeline would funnel crude from the oilsands in northern Alberta to refineries in Texas, 2,700 kilometres away.
The Prime Minister's Office issued a statement shortly after learning of the delay, expressing dissatisfaction.
"We are disappointed with today's decision," the statement said. "We continue to believe the Keystone XL pipeline will create thousands of jobs and billions in economic growth on both sides of the border."
The move also prompted criticism from newly elected Alberta Premier Alison Redford, who pledged to visit Washington next week to lobby for the $7-billion project.
But U.S. President Barack Obama praised the decision, saying in a statement that it's necessary since the project "could affect the health and safety of the American people as well as the environment."
Opposition MPs in Ottawa also welcomed the decision.
New Democrat environment critic Megan Leslie noted that exports of crude from the oilsands have run into regulatory trouble in both U.S. and in Europe.
"Right now, we are laughing stocks. We are being told no repeatedly," she said on CTV's Power Play.
For months, protesters ranging from environmentalists to farmers have been lining up against the proposed pipeline. As recently as Sunday a crowd of thousands gathered near the White House in the hopes of pressuring Obama to scrap the project.
The decision to review the pipeline's route takes political heat off Obama, who runs the risk of angering environmental groups if he approves it, and angering labour and business groups if he blocks it.
TransCanada argues that a delay would cost the company millions of dollars and keep thousands of workers from taking jobs building the pipeline.
But on Thursday, TransCanada CEO Russ Girling said in a statement on Thursday that he's confident the contentious pipeline will eventually be built.
"This project is too important to the U.S. economy, the Canadian economy and the national interest of the United States for it not to proceed," he said.
With files from The Canadian Press
User Tools
Most Popular
Most Viewed News Stories
Most Talked about Stories
If 5000 jobs can be so vital to the nation's economy, they should get what they ask for in bargaining. Simple.
Email
Comments are now closed for this story
alehic
said
Downey
said
kat
said
Cynical
said
Shawn
said
mamapeggie
said
emilio.bruno
said
Mark in Newmarket
said
Robert B
said
john mapplebeck
said
frank
said
Great News!!!!!!
said
Gloria
said
Vern in Alberta
said
Maggie in Calgary
said
Parker Brown
said
B.C Ottawa
said
rawcanadian
said
JakeSmith
said
JPC
said
Jason Calgary
said
So tell me again why they are against this? The environment? Please! They have more environmental issues already than this project will ever create. And any problems that do occur would be cleaned up faster than Bill Clinton's dates' dress.
Pippa Martins-St. Onge
said
Bob
said
P. Reed
said
Vince
said
PDinVIC
said
Gilbert in Kelowna
said
The View from Niagara
said
Mac
said
Well, there's two countries: China and India that are desperate for it, and would gladly take it. So.. how bout we build a much shorter pipeline to export to Asia where the markets are more in our favour?
R. E. Lee, Cold Lake, AB
said
Dave in Alberta
said
Doug
said
We could use at least two new refineries.
One in the north of AB,Sask or Man and one in the East for On and PQ.
Point Break
said
Richard
said
bruno
said
Getyouroilsomewhereelse
said
charlie
said
Bob in Chatham
said
Joel
said
Mea
said
Kevin
said
JD, Ontario
said
Ken
said
Les
said
the pipeline going through the way we planned or nothing
Stephen
said
Halifaxgus
said
Brian
said
George W O
said
JB in Ontario
said
Oil Man
said
cfs_Alberta
said
john messom creston bc
said
Alberta Boy
said
rod
said
Randy
said
Joel
said
Jason P
said
A Koster
said
Bob
said
Prof. Pye Chartt
said
Freeman
said
As for Canada? Does Mr. Harper et al have the courage to diversify our energy strategy?
For starters: Canadian built and owned refineries in North eastern Alberta. Use nuclear energy rather than natural gas to power oil sands extraction. Build three sets of export pipelines 1) Prince Rupert, 2) Churchill, 3) Inuvik area as a keystone to our sovereign energy policy.
Negotiate a sizeable export contract with both India and China for refinery ready crude oil and liquified natural gas. Freeze the quantity of petroleum exports to the USA at the current levels.
Barry Wynn
said
MARG MM
said
Armand Guerin
said
Will
said
Doug in Alberta
said
Dave in Ottawa
said
WT in SASK
said
Canadian Bob
said
Len
said
hollis
said
higgy
said
Really
said
Brock Landers
said
Liberal from Quebec
said