Keystone pipeline decision to languish until mid-June-US source The Obama administration's decision on the Keystone XL oil pipeline will not be made until at least June, a U.S. official said, which would delay the project for months and frustrate backers of Canada's oil sands. "We're talking the beginning of summer at the earliest," said the source, who did not want to be identified due to the sensitive nature of the TransCanada Corp project, which has been pending for more than four and a half years. "It's not weeks until the final decision. It's months." … "The fact the administration is taking its time suggests … that it wants to succeed with an airtight story that pleases the primary concerns of both sides," said Kevin Book, an analyst at ClearView Energy Partners in Washington. – Reuters
Dominant Social Theme: Fracking is the most important technology since the advent of the oil drill.
Free-Market Analysis: Reuters is signaling that a Keystone Pipeline decision is coming soon. Turning the United States into two separate countries (metaphorically anyway) is an ongoing option that looks to become reality.
Looked at this way, we have a solution to our "fracking dilemma."
In several articles we've raised the point about why fracking – a way of unlocking oil – has become a recognized solution to the world's artificial oil crisis. It seems to weaken another elite dominant social theme, which is that the world is running out of oil and authoritarian governmental measures must be taken to conserve what we have.
This supports various justifications for more global government, as well. And now it seems that the fracking boom could be partly intended to create what conspiracy theorists call the North American Union.
The North American Union is a union between Canada, Mexico and the United States.
This makes sense within the context of the gigantic Keystone Pipeline that is intended to run from Canada down the length of the United States, from Alberta to Texas, virtually bisecting the US. We went looking for information about the Pipeline and its applicability to the NAU.
Among others, we found an article posted about a year ago and initially published via the Huffington Post by Daniel Tencer entitled, "Keystone XL Pipeline Delay: Were Fears Of A 'North American Union' Behind Opposition?"
Here are some excerpts:
The Obama administration's decision to delay the Keystone pipeline has been largely painted in the media as a victory for the environmental movement …
In terms of the practical steps required to make Keystone XL a reality, the most significant opposition came from Nebraska, where a Republican governor came out firmly against the project. In a letter to the Obama administration this summer, Gov. Dave Heineman argued the Keystone XL pipeline, in its current proposed form, would threaten the Ogallala aquifer, a watershed that supplies drinking water to 2 million people in Nebraska and six other states.
… Underneath the heated discussions over environmental impact lie several issues close to the hearts of populist American conservatives.
One of these issues is property rights. As The New York Times reported last month, TransCanada Corp., the Keystone's builder, "has been threatening to confiscate private land from South Dakota to the Gulf of Mexico, and is already suing many who have refused to allow the Keystone XL pipeline on their property even though the controversial project has yet to receive federal approval."
Nothing could strike a more unwelcome chord with today's libertarian-minded rural American conservative. The idea that a company — and a foreign company, at that — could come to people's homes and demand that they sell their property to them under threat of lawsuit flies in the face of what they see as the foundations of America's constitutional order. The spectre of a large, unaccountable Canadian company taking homeowners' land against their will in order to build a pipeline for Canadian oil is enough to spark a revolution in today's bloody-minded, Tea Party-dominated conservative movement …
But beyond the controversy over property rights lies another concern, one which may not be articulated by elected politicians in the deep-red rural Midwest, but one that appears in private conversations, in the comments sections of online articles, and on the discussion boards where grassroots conservative debate takes place. And that fear is the North American Union.
It has been a concern (some would say a conspiracy theory) of U.S. conservatives that the North American Free Trade Agreement is the thin end of the wedge to the creation of a North American Union, our very own version of the European Union, complete with mountains of technocratic regulations, soul-sucking bureacuracy and an accompanying loss of sovereignty that would make the United States a subservient element of a new, super-national entity.
(It's an interesting irony to note that while in Canada the fear of losing sovereignty through economic integration has been the domain of progressives, in the U.S. that exact same fear is primarily held by conservative-leaning individuals.)
In the mid-2000s, a conspiracy theory began to circulate on the Internet about a "NAFTA Super-Highway," a massive freeway and rail right-of-way running from the Mexican border to the Canadian border across the continential United States.
Regardless of the fact that such a project would be largely unnecessary and unrealistically expensive, rumours of its imminent groundbreaking spread across the Internet like wildfire. To those worried about a North American Union, the super-highway represented a dangerous new phase of this supposed project to create a super-state from Canada, Mexico and the U.S.
Enter the Keystone pipeline. As some observers have pointed out, the Keystone's route is fairly similar to the route "proposed" for the NAFTA Super-Highway.
Tencer, writing then, pooh-poohs the idea of a North American Union. He obviously didn't give credence to the idea of a gigantic highway with a dozen lanes paralleling a railroad corridor slicing through the United States like a gigantic scar.
There is plenty of evidence that such plans DO exist and have only been delayed and not scuttled. In fact, this is one of the quickest ways to kill a culture and drain a region.
New York power broker Robert Moses pursued a similar strategy by running elevated highways through the Bronx, then one of New York's most prosperous boroughs. In a single generation the Bronx became a desolate, abandoned ruin. It's never recovered.
The mainstream media is dismissive of the idea of powerful interests creating a North American Union that would mimic the failing European Union. But it is fairly obvious to those who study what we call directed history that just such a union is likely planned and has not been implemented only because of stiff opposition.
President George W. Bush and his counterparties in Mexico and Canada spent a good deal of time creating various joint security projects and today the "constitution-free zone" includes along the border between Canada and the US where the two governments work extensively together.
In Mexico, meanwhile, various steps have been taken by the US State Department and others to destabilize that bleeding country via the faux drug war. The drug war is an invention of US black ops and a handy method of projecting US power throughout South America.
Mexico's ongoing destabilization via drug war violence and such black ops as "Fast and Furious" proceeds apace. One can surely speculate that part of the program at the highest levels is to create a "failed state" that will be easier to integrate into a North American Union.
There is plenty of oil in the world; it may be abiotic. In any case, John D. Rockefeller created the name "fossil fuels" to promote the idea of the increasingly scarce nature of oil. Oil scarcity is a promotion, an elite dominant social theme. Thus, we've been surprised that the idea of fracking has been allowed to take hold. Fracking is an old technology and one that – from what we can tell – has been suppressed.
There is plenty of oil to be had via fracking in the Rocky Mountains of the US. But that is not what is being proposed. Instead, the idea is take oil from Canada and run it through the United States. From Reuters, again:
A series of steps still have to be taken by the State Department, where the decision will be made because the 830,000 barrels per day crude oil pipeline crosses the national border. The pipeline will link Alberta's oil sands and North Dakota's Bakken shale fields to refineries and ports in Texas.
The State Department did not comment for this story, but last week a spokeswoman said it did not anticipate making the decision before the end of March. Previously, the department had hinted the decision could come in the middle of the first quarter.
The good news is that this gigantic superhighway complex remains controversial. The bad news is that quite obviously – to those who believe in directed history – this new oil-conduit is creating a corridor that can then be exploited for a highway, railroad, etc.
The power elite that wants to create global governance – and sees the US as a major stumbling block – may be willing to blow up its oil-scarcity meme to accomplish a larger objective. Oil scarcity can be renewed via green pushback but in the meantime a further attack on US culture and polity can be launched.
The game is afoot.