http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/obama-administration-expected-to-reject-keystone-xl-pipeline-215597
I mean it was pretty much expected at this point. But it's frustrating as an Albertan. Being able to sell our oil at a better rate (currently it sells at a discount due to transportation issues) would definitely help our very much hurting economy (my brother's EI is about to run out). But to see Keystone XL become some kind of magnet for environmental groups is frustrating. I'm all for tackling climate change, but it has to be done in a comprehensive fashion - not trying to pick off a couple of high-profile projects that won't actually impact global warming in the least.
This is the kind of thing that gives the nutbar right the ammunition they need to reject environmental concerns as being motivated by a bunch of crazy people who don't care about anything but theoretical ideology.
From the article:
QuoteThe pipeline "would not make a meaningful contribution to our economy," Obama said, dismissing claims that the pipeline would boost job creation. If Congress is serious about creating jobs, lawmakers should pass a bipartisan infrastructure plan "that in the short term could create more than 30 times as many jobs per year as the pipeline would," Obama said.
Story Continued Below
Obama also said Keystone would not lower gas prices for American consumers, since the average price of gas has fallen about 77 cents over a year ago, or ensure future energy supplies.
What kind of ridiculous standard is that? Of course it will not make a meaningful contribution to the economy. You have a $17 trillion dollar economy. No single project is going to budge that. And of course it will not impact gas prices. The US uses almost 7 billion barrels of oil in a year.
By those standards you won't allow any pipeline, ever.
Regrettable. I never understood the widespread opposition to this project.
Agreed, so frustrating. IMO a big mistake. The oil is now being transported by truck and rail which have a much bigger carbon footprint than a pipeline and more likely for leakage from accidents. There are thousands of miles of pipelines across the country and for this one to become the cause celeb for the enviro crowd is foolish. Many environmental studies have been done and show no problem from this. And from what I hear most Canadians including politicians want it and Canada is more left wing than they US. This oil will be sold somewhere, probably to China so it's not going to be kept from being used; it'll just give an economic opponent the benefits. This seems like such a good idea to further ease transporting large amount of oil to US refineries and to help wean the West off of Mid East oil. And if some of it is used in the US then North America becomes all the more energy self-sufficient.
I do have to wonder also, aside from the enviro lobby who else has the muscle to thwart this pipeline? Has to be some big figures pushing against it. I figure lobbyists in Washington including the large Saudi lobby are pushing hard against this, and what are they promising in return?
Eh, as a Republican I find myself often defending Obama against the lunatic right, but this is one where it's hard to defend him, or the Democrats. I'm all for a major investment away from carbon-emitting power generation, my favorite is nuclear but I definitely believe in investment in wind and solar as well. But we need oil now, and that's reality. I am pretty positive about how we've been ramping up alternatives but again, we have a reality right now in which this oil is needed. Further, this oil will be drilled and refined regardless of whether Keystone XL is built.
So what it really comes down to is a billionaire environmentalist poured a ton of money into politics and chose to make this his biggest issue. I think that's regrettable--I laud a billionaire trying to move the needle on our national debate about how to move away from fossil fuels (especially since large swathes of the country remain skeptical that we need to at all.) But to focus on a project that truly has no environmental impact is ludicrous. What makes it more ludicrous is over ten times as much pipeline has been laid since the review of Keystone XL started--including multiple pipelines that cross the Canadian/American border. The fact that they were not given such scrutiny to me makes it quite obvious that the administration didn't make a decision based on environmental principles at all on Keystone XL--instead they made a decision based on what was in the public eye and what big donors had pushed for--essentially a craven political act.
On top of the fact that tons of pipeline has been built during the Keystone XL review process with nary a negative word by the administration (including projects crossing the international border that also would've required State Department review), there's also the fact that this oil is just being transported anyway by less energy efficient modes of transportation. Every barrel that goes across Warren Buffet's rail network instead of a pipeline actually is worse for the environment, because you're spending needless energy to move it above what is required to move it via pipeline. So rejecting Keystone XL is actually worse for the environment than approving it.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 06, 2015, 01:15:35 PM
there's also the fact that this oil is just being transported anyway by less energy efficient modes of transportation. Every barrel that goes across Warren Buffet's rail network instead of a pipeline actually is worse for the environment, because you're spending needless energy to move it above what is required to move it via pipeline. So rejecting Keystone XL is actually worse for the environment than approving it.
I think this is the main point.
Ah ok now I understand the opposition to the project.
Cowardice and corruption are what the Democratic Party is all about. Yet I have to vote them. Sigh.
Quote from: Barrister on November 06, 2015, 12:41:35 PM
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/obama-administration-expected-to-reject-keystone-xl-pipeline-215597
I mean it was pretty much expected at this point. But it's frustrating as an Albertan. Being able to sell our oil at a better rate (currently it sells at a discount due to transportation issues) would definitely help our very much hurting economy (my brother's EI is about to run out). But to see Keystone XL become some kind of magnet for environmental groups is frustrating. I'm all for tackling climate change, but it has to be done in a comprehensive fashion - not trying to pick off a couple of high-profile projects that won't actually impact global warming in the least.
You would love the nuclear sector.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 06, 2015, 01:15:35 PM
Eh, as a Republican I find myself often defending Obama against the lunatic right, but this is one where it's hard to defend him, or the Democrats. I'm all for a major investment away from carbon-emitting power generation, my favorite is nuclear but I definitely believe in investment in wind and solar as well. But we need oil now, and that's reality. I am pretty positive about how we've been ramping up alternatives but again, we have a reality right now in which this oil is needed. Further, this oil will be drilled and refined regardless of whether Keystone XL is built.
So what it really comes down to is a billionaire environmentalist poured a ton of money into politics and chose to make this his biggest issue. I think that's regrettable--I laud a billionaire trying to move the needle on our national debate about how to move away from fossil fuels (especially since large swathes of the country remain skeptical that we need to at all.) But to focus on a project that truly has no environmental impact is ludicrous. What makes it more ludicrous is over ten times as much pipeline has been laid since the review of Keystone XL started--including multiple pipelines that cross the Canadian/American border. The fact that they were not given such scrutiny to me makes it quite obvious that the administration didn't make a decision based on environmental principles at all on Keystone XL--instead they made a decision based on what was in the public eye and what big donors had pushed for--essentially a craven political act.
On top of the fact that tons of pipeline has been built during the Keystone XL review process with nary a negative word by the administration (including projects crossing the international border that also would've required State Department review), there's also the fact that this oil is just being transported anyway by less energy efficient modes of transportation. Every barrel that goes across Warren Buffet's rail network instead of a pipeline actually is worse for the environment, because you're spending needless energy to move it above what is required to move it via pipeline. So rejecting Keystone XL is actually worse for the environment than approving it.
Who is this billionaire environmentalist you speak of?
Quote from: Barrister on November 06, 2015, 01:24:57 PM
Who is this billionaire environmentalist you speak of?
Buffet
Quote from: Valmy on November 06, 2015, 01:22:34 PM
Ah ok now I understand the opposition to the project.
Cowardice and corruption are what the Democratic Party is all about. Yet I have to vote them. Sigh.
Have fun!
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg0.joyreactor.com%2Fpics%2Fpost%2Fauto-Simpsons-kang-kodos-345953.jpeg&hash=3124eaa14130c0073e12f30b002a41577da9f926)
Quote from: The Brain on November 06, 2015, 01:24:42 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 06, 2015, 12:41:35 PM
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/obama-administration-expected-to-reject-keystone-xl-pipeline-215597
I mean it was pretty much expected at this point. But it's frustrating as an Albertan. Being able to sell our oil at a better rate (currently it sells at a discount due to transportation issues) would definitely help our very much hurting economy (my brother's EI is about to run out). But to see Keystone XL become some kind of magnet for environmental groups is frustrating. I'm all for tackling climate change, but it has to be done in a comprehensive fashion - not trying to pick off a couple of high-profile projects that won't actually impact global warming in the least.
You would love the nuclear sector.
Been there, done that, got the t-shirt (eh, sweatshirt actually).
I worked for AECL for six months helping to prepare the environmental impact assessment of their permanent storage facility.
Despite a resoundingly positive finding, 20 years later it's still unbuilt. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Barrister on November 06, 2015, 01:26:35 PM
Quote from: The Brain on November 06, 2015, 01:24:42 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 06, 2015, 12:41:35 PM
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/obama-administration-expected-to-reject-keystone-xl-pipeline-215597
I mean it was pretty much expected at this point. But it's frustrating as an Albertan. Being able to sell our oil at a better rate (currently it sells at a discount due to transportation issues) would definitely help our very much hurting economy (my brother's EI is about to run out). But to see Keystone XL become some kind of magnet for environmental groups is frustrating. I'm all for tackling climate change, but it has to be done in a comprehensive fashion - not trying to pick off a couple of high-profile projects that won't actually impact global warming in the least.
You would love the nuclear sector.
Been there, done that, got the t-shirt (eh, sweatshirt actually).
I worked for AECL for six months helping to prepare the environmental impact assessment of their permanent storage facility.
Despite a resoundingly positive finding, 20 years later it's still unbuilt. :rolleyes:
Go environment! :)
Quote from: Valmy on November 06, 2015, 01:25:43 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 06, 2015, 01:24:57 PM
Who is this billionaire environmentalist you speak of?
Buffet
I hadn't heard that before. And quick googling shows me quotes from Buffett supporting the pipeline.
http://business.financialpost.com/news/energy/warren-buffett-says-keystone-xl-pipeline-delay-amounts-to-u-s-thumbing-nose-at-canada
Quote from: Barrister on November 06, 2015, 12:41:35 PM
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/obama-administration-expected-to-reject-keystone-xl-pipeline-215597
I mean it was pretty much expected at this point. But it's frustrating as an Albertan. Being able to sell our oil at a better rate (currently it sells at a discount due to transportation issues) would definitely help our very much hurting economy (my brother's EI is about to run out). But to see Keystone XL become some kind of magnet for environmental groups is frustrating. I'm all for tackling climate change, but it has to be done in a comprehensive fashion - not trying to pick off a couple of high-profile projects that won't actually impact global warming in the least.
Maybe Alberta should work on cleaning its oil production? Make it more energy efficient, less polluting for the environment (rivers and forests) instead of trying all tricks in the book to get away with polluting?
Of course, you will always have nutjobs, but so long as you're not harming seals, you should be safe from them.
Quote from: Barrister on November 06, 2015, 01:24:57 PMWho is this billionaire environmentalist you speak of?
Tom Steyer, a hedge fund billionaire that has been a major backer of Keystone opposition movements across the country.
I'm guessing Valmy was joking about Buffett. Buffett has profited from the opposition to Keystone due to his ownership of BNSF, but to my knowledge he has not been involved in political activism over it, and is not known as a big giver to political causes. I think he does make donations to Dems, but very modest ones relative to his wealth. Tom Steyer has spent millions backing anti-Keystone lawmakers and even said at one point he considered defeat of Keystone XL a litmus test as to whether his money has been well spent.
Plus, Keystone was only going to move so much oil, Buffett probably knows there is still strong demand for rail capacity even without it. Another thing, with the low oil prices Buffett probably knows regardless he's only going to harvest profits on shipping oil for so long (it's already slowing down.)
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 06, 2015, 01:31:45 PM
I'm guessing Valmy was joking about Buffett. Buffett has profited from the opposition to Keystone due to his ownership of BNSF,
Yeah sorry.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 06, 2015, 01:31:45 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 06, 2015, 01:24:57 PMWho is this billionaire environmentalist you speak of?
Tom Steyer, a hedge fund billionaire that has been a major backer of Keystone opposition movements across the country.
I'm guessing Valmy was joking about Buffett. Buffett has profited from the opposition to Keystone due to his ownership of BNSF, but to my knowledge he has not been involved in political activism over it, and is not known as a big giver to political causes. I think he does make donations to Dems, but very modest ones relative to his wealth. Tom Steyer has spent millions backing anti-Keystone lawmakers and even said at one point he considered defeat of Keystone XL a litmus test as to whether his money has been well spent.
Plus, Keystone was only going to move so much oil, Buffett probably knows there is still strong demand for rail capacity even without it. Another thing, with the low oil prices Buffett probably knows regardless he's only going to harvest profits on shipping oil for so long (it's already slowing down.)
I think also that Steyer made a lot of his fortune in energy, fossil fuels. But yeah, I've seen his name before as one of the big money opponents and those getting his donations don't want to lose out on that cash, whether the project is good for the country or not. :ph34r:
Quote from: Barrister on November 06, 2015, 01:00:00 PM
From the article:
QuoteThe pipeline "would not make a meaningful contribution to our economy," Obama said, dismissing claims that the pipeline would boost job creation. If Congress is serious about creating jobs, lawmakers should pass a bipartisan infrastructure plan "that in the short term could create more than 30 times as many jobs per year as the pipeline would," Obama said.
Story Continued Below
Obama also said Keystone would not lower gas prices for American consumers, since the average price of gas has fallen about 77 cents over a year ago, or ensure future energy supplies.
What kind of ridiculous standard is that? Of course it will not make a meaningful contribution to the economy. You have a $17 trillion dollar economy. No single project is going to budge that. And of course it will not impact gas prices. The US uses almost 7 billion barrels of oil in a year.
By those standards you won't allow any pipeline, ever.
Obama certainly packed as many logical fallacies as he could in those couple of sentences. Seems like a pretty politically cowardly move. Of course we all know that GOP will give absolute zero credit for doing the right thing, but sometimes you should still do the right thing regardless.
Some people here are also fighting against additional natural gas pipelines into parts of New England. I was surprised, shocked actually, to read that here we still import nat gas from Yemen or somewhere in that region, via LNG tankers. When they come into Boston the authorities shut down parts of the city, heavy security, since if one explodes or is attacked it'll wipe a part of the city. And yet we do that instead of pipelines. Hopefully the lines will go through. I heat/cook with nat gas and it's a lot cleaner cheaper than oil. With the huge surplus of US gas we still have to import it here, while nat gas is probably being burned off because domestic drillers can't get it all to market.
I pass and use part of the route of a significant oil pipeline several times a week and I'd guess 95% of people who use that way have no idea its there.
IMHO pipelines are typically a benign and very efficient piece of modern infrastructure.
The argument against IIRC is that the only way the project would be profitable is in a world where the amount of oil drilled and burned far exceeds the acceptable threshold for carbon emissions.
Assuming that is accurate it is a reason not to build, but IMO it's not a reason for the government to block as a regulatory matter. I.e. it always seemed to me that the environmentalist position should have been - go ahead, build your pipeline, but we will lobby like hell for policies that will mean you will all lose your shirts on the investment. Caveat emptor.
But blocking the construction itself seems like an empty and pointless gesture. It doesn't have any material impact on future emissions.
This is a useful reminder that harming the country for political purposes is something that both parties can agree on.
Mightn't it be a moot point anyway, if Trudeau fils' commitment to emission caps renders the tar sands uneconomical?
Bleh. I didn't get the bitching about the pipelines. Oil pipelines already crisscross the country. So what if they build another?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 06, 2015, 06:50:17 PM
Mightn't it be a moot point anyway, if Trudeau fils' commitment to emission caps renders the tar sands uneconomical?
Oil sands! :mad:
Emission caps tend to fall more on the end user, not the producer. So increased costs would tend to decrease demand, but are unlikely to shut down all of Ft McMurray.
http://bismarcktribune.com/bakken/north-dakota-town-evacuated-after-oil-cars-derail-and-catch/article_992b4c53-24f4-54fd-a657-9943d69fca0c.html
:lol:
Quote from: Barrister on November 06, 2015, 11:42:35 PM
Oil sands! :mad:
Emission caps tend to fall more on the end user, not the producer. So increased costs would tend to decrease demand, but are unlikely to shut down all of Ft McMurray.
My understanding is that the extraction of oil from TAR SANDS emits much more carbon than traditional drilling (or fracking) does. Therefore any system that penalizes carbon emission is going to disproportionately impact Alberta TAR SANDS extraction.
Quote from: mongers on November 06, 2015, 02:44:36 PM
I pass and use part of the route of a significant oil pipeline several times a week and I'd guess 95% of people who use that way have no idea its there.
IMHO pipelines are typically a benign and very efficient piece of modern infrastructure.
I have a pair of pipelines just out my back yard. It makes for a wonderful green space that makes a perfect jogging track.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 08, 2015, 05:53:12 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 06, 2015, 11:42:35 PM
Oil sands! :mad:
Emission caps tend to fall more on the end user, not the producer. So increased costs would tend to decrease demand, but are unlikely to shut down all of Ft McMurray.
My understanding is that the extraction of oil from TAR SANDS emits much more carbon than traditional drilling (or fracking) does. Therefore any system that penalizes carbon emission is going to disproportionately impact Alberta TAR SANDS extraction.
Its really just a cost issue. For years the accepted wisdom was that no oil would come out of the area because the costs of production (both getting the raw material and then refining it) were simply too high. As oil prices began to rise the extraction of the oil from those fields became profitable. If a new costing structure makes the extraction more costly and unprofitable then production there will stop until oil prices reach the point that it is once again profitable to exploit the resource. If alternative energy sources and uses are developed then the oil sands may not be profitable. But given the rising rate of oil consumption I am not too sure about that.
:huh:
What is so hard to understand? As I understand this decision hurts the Canadian economy, not the US one, AND by simply not letting it be built, Obama and the environmentalists appear as if they have actually done something.
It's a win-win if I've ever seen one
Quote from: Tamas on November 09, 2015, 01:04:42 PM
:huh:
What is so hard to understand? As I understand this decision hurts the Canadian economy, not the US one, AND by simply not letting it be built, Obama and the environmentalists appear as if they have actually done something.
It's a win-win if I've ever seen one
bakken oil must flow. trains are, relatively, inefficient and seem to be much more environmentally harmful due to the frequent derailments.
Quote from: LaCroix on November 09, 2015, 03:26:38 PM
Quote from: Tamas on November 09, 2015, 01:04:42 PM
:huh:
What is so hard to understand? As I understand this decision hurts the Canadian economy, not the US one, AND by simply not letting it be built, Obama and the environmentalists appear as if they have actually done something.
It's a win-win if I've ever seen one
bakken oil must flow. trains are, relatively, inefficient and seem to be much more environmentally harmful due to the frequent derailments.
XL wasn't about Bakken-formation oil though. It was for Alberta oil, and principally oil from Ft McMurray's oil sands.
Quote from: Barrister on November 09, 2015, 03:28:53 PMXL wasn't about Bakken-formation oil though. It was for Alberta oil, and principally oil from Ft McMurray's oil sands.
will no bakken oil flow into the pipeline? i've heard otherwise, but the person who told me may have been wrong. i'm not saying it's made for bakken, but any additional pipeline really helps out there.
Quote from: LaCroix on November 09, 2015, 03:32:14 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 09, 2015, 03:28:53 PMXL wasn't about Bakken-formation oil though. It was for Alberta oil, and principally oil from Ft McMurray's oil sands.
will no bakken oil flow into the pipeline? i've heard otherwise, but the person who told me may have been wrong. i'm not saying it's made for bakken, but any additional pipeline really helps out there.
Well probably some would. It's not one single pipe - it's part of a network after all.
bakken oil companies are still having to burn off 20%~ of all natural gas produced due to the lack of infrastructure (mainly pipelines, iirc). while they're trying to reduce the flaring, any additional pipeline has got to help. and, at least by last summer, it's still too early to tell what the future is gonna hold for bakken oil production. so, this pipeline does help the U.S. + could reduce environmental harm. it's a decision that really doesn't make much sense to me, and i like obama.
Quote from: LaCroix on November 09, 2015, 03:43:31 PM
bakken oil companies are still having to burn off 20%~ of all natural gas produced due to the lack of infrastructure (mainly pipelines, iirc). while they're trying to reduce the flaring, any additional pipeline has got to help. and, at least by last summer, it's still too early to tell what the future is gonna hold for bakken oil production. so, this pipeline does help the U.S. + could reduce environmental harm. it's a decision that really doesn't make much sense to me, and i like obama.
I should point out that Keystone is an oil pipeline, and won't hold natural gas.
Keystone = Ed?
Quote from: Barrister on November 09, 2015, 03:50:28 PMI should point out that Keystone is an oil pipeline, and won't hold natural gas.
iirc, the issue is that because the oil has to flow through the pipelines, there's not enough room for gas. this is based on research from last year, so my memory might be faulty. if the keystone wouldn't alleviate the flaring problem at all, i imagine additional infrastructure would help the situation out regardless through some indirect way. plus, the point re: train usage in general.
Quote from: Tamas on November 09, 2015, 01:04:42 PM
:huh:
What is so hard to understand? As I understand this decision hurts the Canadian economy, not the US one, AND by simply not letting it be built, Obama and the environmentalists appear as if they have actually done something.
It's a win-win if I've ever seen one
It does hurt Canada more. But that doesn't make it not what Sir Humphrey would call a courageous decision.
Now, every time a train derails, it's gonna be Obama's fault and zerohedge is going to repost that pic of Obama putting a medal on Warren Buffett.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 09, 2015, 06:10:41 PM
zerohedge
Is that something we are supposed to care about? :unsure:
TransCanada sues under NAFTA for $15 billion.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/transcanada-lawsuit-keystone-xl-pipeline-1.3392446
interesting
Canadians have become totally Americanized.
I think even France would do the same if they were suffering the way Canada's oil is.