Perdue & Isakson Respond To Obama’s Keystone Rejection

U.S. Senators Johnny Isakson and David Perdue released the following statements today after President Obama rejected the Keystone XL pipeline:


“President Obama has made the wrong decision for America by rejecting the Keystone XL pipeline. Today’s action means that we will be missing the opportunity to be an energy-independent nation. The American people are still struggling in today’s economy, and they expect and deserve Washington to cut red tape to unleash America’s energy resources. This project would create American jobs, ensure America’s energy security and reinforce relations with our largest trading partner. Building the Keystone XL pipeline is an important step toward meeting these goals.”



“Let’s be honest, President Obama was never serious about working with Congress to unleash our energy resources. For years, it’s been clear the Keystone Pipeline would have jumpstarted the economy, helped lower energy costs for families, and created good paying jobs. President Obama’s politically motivated decisions put special interest groups and his liberal climate agenda ahead of working middle class families, and today’s decision to reject Keystone is no different. I will continue to fight to grow our economy and unlock our nation’s full energy potential.”


  1. Rhonda Kazmierski says:

    I am 100% in agreement with Obama. The jobs that this pipeline would create, are not worth the carbon footprint that it would leave. Sorry, Isakson..Perdue!!

    • Three Jack says:

      Guess what Rhonda, the carbon footprint as you call it will be even bigger by not allowing the pipeline. Now the oil will be transported by train. So not only is it a bigger environmental impact to deny the pipeline, there is the higher level of accident probability.

      • benevolus says:

        Need more data please.
        Presumably, if they wanted the pipeline it was because it would be cheaper/easier to transport the oil to a port than a train. So maybe production will be restricted because they have to use trains? Which would be less carbon and less risk?

        • Three Jack says:

          More data provided –

          See Table ES-6, page ES-34 for a comparison that shows the carbon emissions of the pipeline vs current trans methods. Quick math shows about a 25% decrease using the pipeline.

          And to xdog, agree with you that our 2 senators are relying on GOP generated soundbites instead of making a valid case built on the State Dept. EIS. Much easier doing the soundbite route instead of actually finding valid environmental reasons for the pipeline.

          • benevolus says:

            Thank you! Interesting, for a nerd anyway.
            I’m not sure what the environmentalists point is, but I think it includes NOT extracting the oil at all. All these scenarios assume the oil will be extracted, and yes, sending it to the west coast and then shipping it via the Panama Canal to Houston would probably have more GHG impact than the pipeline. But that wouldn’t really happen, would it? It’s taking “apples to apples” a little far.

            • benevolus says:

              And my argument has been that the big reason FOR building the pipeline is that it would somehow help our energy independence, which I can’t make sense of.

            • Three Jack says:

              My understand of the environmental impact is that the oil will be moved no matter. So the choice is whether it flows through a pipeline to the gulf or is transported there via train. Seems to me the pipe would have less of an impact as corroborated by the dem led State Dept study.

              My question; why is this such a big deal considering the miles and miles of oil pipe already in existence. Why can’t a private company just build one more pipeline? And are there other proposed pipelines being OK’d while this one is politicized for over 7 years?

      • xdog says:

        I don’t see how running tanker cars is a bigger environmental impact.

        Be that as it may, Isakson and Perdue especially are full of it. Unleash America’s energy resources? Jump start the economy? Lower energy costs? Give me a break, Senators. However the oil is transported, it will be sold on the open market.

        My own view is if the Canadians were so hot for a pipeline they had a shorter route available to Vancouver.

    • saltycracker says:

      Carbon ? Cash and influence might edge out that,
      Warren Buffett and Burlington Northern are the top movers of that oil now and want to keep it that way.

  2. Feeling the Bern says:

    I see the Puppets of Big Energy are busy hand wringing in a most ‘loyal opposition’ kind of way.

    See how cute they are when they dance around in a controlled circle?

  3. D_in_ATL says:

    FWIW, there was a discussion on NPR about this. Apparently the steep drop in oil prices and production this year has made the tar sands in Canada economically impossible to develop. Also, the carbon tax that would come with developing this resource would be pretty high, so Canada would gain traction in the UN by not exploiting it. In the end there’s no reason to build a pipeline. The only thing that was keeping the project in the news was republican rhetoric about jobs, energy independence, Obama’s secret Muslim connections, etc.

  4. Dave Bearse says:

    Did anyone see Isakson’s or Perdue’s statements of support for new pipelines to better move energy resources and create jobs in coastal and southwest Georgia?

    Didn’t think so.

Comments are closed.