Skip to content

Reader disappointed with Keystone decision

Dear Editor, I would like to express my disgust and outrage of an abuse of international law and agree with Rick DeVries, that the Keystone Pipeline would have been a game changer for Canada.

Dear Editor,

I would like to express my disgust and outrage of an abuse of international law and agree with Rick DeVries, that the Keystone Pipeline would have been a game changer for Canada. Opening a conduit through US territory down to Texas refiners for the purpose of off-loading onto Chinese tankers is great business. And there is the current rational behind the political back-tracking, there is no profit for the America economy. Strong political opponents contend that the pipeline's petroleum would largely by-pass the American markets and be shipped onto Asian tankers. This stems from a proposed alignment between Conoco Phillips, Encana and Trans Canada Corp's Keystone pipeline to Texas refineries wholly owned by Valero Energy, the biggest petroleum producer in Quebec and Atlantic Canada. Effectively tying the energy fields of Foster Creek and Christina Lakes with the refineries in Wood River, Illinois and Cushing, Oklahoma with a straight conduit to the Valero refineries on the Gulf Coast. A suave piece of maneuvering that both Presidents, Bush and Clinton agreed to. Then along comes President Obama with his 67th Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, the dictator of the NAFTA accord and we have a whole new reason to drag the feet. A contentious issue of the standing NAFTA that continues to cause debate, is whether the US is legally entitled under the NAFTA to a vast share of Canada's fresh water supply. Our leadership at the time literally gave away our water rights for a chance to sit at the American trade table, (second largest in the world). But trying to slip our oil reserves under the soil sheets of America so we can get to the Chinese market, (largest in the world) just won't wash on Obama's watch

So, how do we fix this, well Hillary is prepared to abscond with billions of gallons more of our nice clean water and this issue will just go away. We have already paid this price in 2005 when the President did agree and was then upheld in the US courts making refusal unlawful. Question is how many times do we pay and gain presidential agreement before acceptance is assured. But it is their country and we are just Canadians.

W. Krechuniak

push icon
Be the first to read breaking stories. Enable push notifications on your device. Disable anytime.
No thanks