Clinton under Senate scrutiny over oil sands -

Clinton under Senate scrutiny over oil sands


To recap, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, recently said that she was “inclined to” approve TransCanada’s proposed Keystone XL pipeline that would stretch from Alberta as far as Texas.

Now a group of Senate heavyweights, led by Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, are raising concerns about the pipelines and Clinton’s prejudging of the approval process. Several of the 11 senators are members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

The have sent a detailed letter with a laundry list of pointed questions about the pipeline.  One of them calls Canada’s bluff:

“The DEIS states that ‘producers in Canada have indicated that if the US market is not available to them, much of the crude would be shipped outside of North America. particularly to Japan, China and India…”

– What is the current status of the pipeline proposals to the West Coast?

– What is the capacity of these pipeline porposals relative to the capacity of pipelines to the U.S., with and without Keystone XL?


It will be interesting to see the response from State.

The full letter is here.

Filed under:

Clinton under Senate scrutiny over oil sands

  1. very interesting – sure is nice to be in the catbird seat up here and not bent over the barrel as it were like the Yanks !

  2. Hillary put her foot in it this time, but then she comments on far too many things.

  3. It's true – efforts to build a pipeline to the west coast will face challenges. But, the other option would be to upgrade facilities to ship more Alberta bitumen/heavy oil to Sarnia/Eastern Canada to displace imported foreign crude. At some point, if you place enough hurdles in the US Gulf coast destination, this becomes the best economic sol'n.

  4. It's not a bluff – producers are currently price takers because there is one market. If they can get a west coast pipeline, Canadian producers become price setters. Enbridge's proposed Gateway pipeline is the more commonly preferred by producers, but the XL pipeline has a much more realistic probability of being approved in the short term.

  5. Oh some Americans are still sanctimoniously blind, they would rather have their oil from the Middle east and Venezuela. God forbid Canada will send them tainted oil!

  6. China, with their rapidly growing demand for energy from all sources, will be only too pleased to accept either bitumen or synthetic crude from the Athabasca area should the Americans say "no" to the pipeline. With their oil imports growing at 45 percent over the past 5 years, they are having to reach to either pariah countries or environmentally unattractive sources for their needs as noted here:

    • spam

  7. Who cares those senators will be FIRED in four days……