QuoteThe Obama administration was poised on Wednesday to reject the Keystone crude oil pipeline, according to sources, a decision that would be welcomed by environmental groups but inflame the domestic energy industry.
Sources familiar with the matter told Reuters the administration could announce its rejection of TransCanada's Keystone XL pipeline late on Wednesday. But State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said later that it has not made a decision on the proposed pipeline.
TransCanada Corp. shares slid more than 3 percent after reports that rejection was imminent.
"We're expecting the pipeline to be rejected," the source said.
Rejection of the pipeline had been expected in Washington after Obama tried to delay the decision until 2013 but Congress forced his hand as part of a popular tax cut measure. Republican lawmakers have already begun work on a plan to let Congress circumvent the administration and give the project the go-ahead.
State Department officials said TransCanada will be allowed to apply again for a permit if it identifies a new route for the pipeline through Nebraska. Critics of the pipeline have said a spill along this route could contaminate the aquifer. But a new route would mean substantial delays.
TransCanada's planned 1,700-mile pipeline has become a potent symbol in the battle over of the future of U.S. energy policy.
With environmental groups concerned about carbon emissions from oil sands production, the administration in November delayed a decision on a presidential permit for the project until 2013.
But lawmakers that support the project attached a measure to a tax-cut law passed at the end of last year that set a February deadline for a decision.
The administration has said it needs more time to consider alternative routes for the pipeline, which originally was planned to traverse sensitive habitats and a crucial water source in Nebraska.
Caught in the middle
The pipeline has placed the Obama administration in the middle of a dispute between two key parts of its voting block: green groups who oppose the pipeline over concerns about climate change and some unions who back the project because of the jobs they believe it would create.
Supporters say the pipeline that would transport 830,000 barrel per day of crude to U.S. Gulf coast refineries would create thousands of jobs and is integral to U.S. energy security.
Environmentalists say the job-creation claims are inflated and warn that the pipeline would lock the nation into the use of carbon-intensive oil sands crude for years. They said their support for Obama's reelection campaign this year depended on his rejection of the pipeline.
The company in November agreed to find a new route away from the Sandhills and Ogallala aquifer in Nebraska.
TransCanada shares tumbled as word circulated of a rejection for the project the company has developed and promoted for more than three years. The stock was down more than 3 percent at C$40.91 on the Toronto Stock Exchange at midday.
Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper said this week that Iran's threat to block shipping in the Strait of Hormuz pointed to why Washington should approve the project.
I don't know enough about this to really comment (though when has that ever stopped anyone on Languish?), but this seems stupid. :Canuck:
Fuck Canada!
if you don't want our oil china will take it :Canuck:
Fuck you then - we'll just seell our oil to the Chinese instead. :cool:
It's stuff like this that drives me crazy regarding certain elements in the environmental activists. Their opposition has little to nothing to do with water aquifers in Nebraska. It has everything to do with the fact they think that the US / world needs to use less oil.
But trying to reduce oil consumption by attacking potential sources of oil seems to me to be the most asinine way of fighting global warming I can think of. It's on par with Republicans trying to shrink the size of government by reducing tax revenues - no matter what it might do to the budget deficit.
The continent is already covered in pipelines. One more won't hurt.
http://www.theodora.com/pipelines/north_america_pipelines_map.jpg
If TransCanada submits a new application, the Obama Administration says that it would need at least another 12-18 months to make a decision. :rolleyes:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/46045289 (http://www.cnbc.com/id/46045289)
Good. Shipping our precious oil to America is not an optimum use of it.
From my experience, there isn't a whole lot of jobs involved in building a large capacity oil pipeline.
I think the Yanks might being trying to help you Cannucks out, tearing up all of the land for tar sands is kinda short term thinking, with climate change much of that land might potentially become valuable agricultural land eventually. ;)
They should complete a rail line from the lower 48 to Alaska instead.
Quote from: mongers on January 18, 2012, 07:37:14 PM
From my experience, there isn't a whole lot of jobs involved in building a large capacity oil pipeline.
I think the Yanks might being trying to help you Cannucks out, tearing up all of the land for tar sands is kinda short term thinking, with climate change much of that land might potentially become valuable agricultural land eventually. ;)
It's a forest, Mongers. If they attempted to turn it into agricultural land, the environmentalists would engage in a campaign of terror.
Besides, there's no shortage of rich agricultural land in Alberta.
Quote from: Neil on January 18, 2012, 08:01:44 PM
Quote from: mongers on January 18, 2012, 07:37:14 PM
From my experience, there isn't a whole lot of jobs involved in building a large capacity oil pipeline.
I think the Yanks might being trying to help you Cannucks out, tearing up all of the land for tar sands is kinda short term thinking, with climate change much of that land might potentially become valuable agricultural land eventually. ;)
It's a forest, Mongers. If they attempted to turn it into agricultural land, the environmentalists would engage in a campaign of terror.
Besides, there's no shortage of rich agricultural land in Alberta.
I know it's forest, but with the possibility of climate zones migrating north and south, then it to might be needed for agriculture as other countries suffer from desertification, soil erosion etc
Quote from: mongers on January 18, 2012, 08:13:48 PM
Quote from: Neil on January 18, 2012, 08:01:44 PM
Quote from: mongers on January 18, 2012, 07:37:14 PM
From my experience, there isn't a whole lot of jobs involved in building a large capacity oil pipeline.
I think the Yanks might being trying to help you Cannucks out, tearing up all of the land for tar sands is kinda short term thinking, with climate change much of that land might potentially become valuable agricultural land eventually. ;)
It's a forest, Mongers. If they attempted to turn it into agricultural land, the environmentalists would engage in a campaign of terror.
Besides, there's no shortage of rich agricultural land in Alberta.
I know it's forest, but with the possibility of climate zones migrating north and south, then it to might be needed for agriculture as other countries suffer from desertification, soil erosion etc
Alberta will be able to feed itself.
According to this Economist blog it looks like a big bit of election year jiu jitsu. Both parties benefit:
QuoteKeystone XL
Still in the pipeline
Jan 18th 2012, 21:20 by S.W.
BARACK OBAMA'S decision last year to put off a judgment on a proposed oil pipeline between Canada and Texas until after this year's presidential election swept a tricky problem under the carpet. Supporters pointed out that Keystone XL, a pipeline that would carry oil from Alberta's tar sands, as well as some from America's Bakken shale fields, would bring not just added energy security but jobs aplenty. Environmentalists would have none of these supposed advantages, decrying emissions-heavy oil from tar sands and claiming that in the event of a leak, the pipeline threatened a vulnerable aquifer on its route through Nebraska.
So the administration's announcement that it will now slap a big "rejected" stamp on the application from TransCanada, the Canadian company that wants to build and operate Keystone XL, seems to come down firmly on the side of the greens. But Mr Obama is still treading a fine line between the two sides. Thanks to resistance to the pipeline from Republican politicians in Nebraska last year, TransCanada had already offered to reroute it to avoid the Sandhills, a part of the state where the massive Ogallala aquifer rises almost to the surface. The ostensible reason for last year's delay was the need to study new routes (the unspoken ones being to duck a tough decision and placate the green lobby). The assumption was that the pipeline would eventually be approved in some form, but not at such an awkward time.
Republicans in Congress, however, tried to force the president's hand by inserting into an important spending bill a clause obliging him to rule one way or another by the end of February. The administration now claims, insouciantly, that it had to rule against the pipeline because the Republicans had denied it the chance to consider all the risks properly. In fact, little has changed. TransCanada can submit a new application for a similar pipeline following a new route, giving Mr Obama the respite he wanted while allowing him to bask in green adulation for now. The Republicans, for their part, can now make slightly stronger attack ads about Mr Obama's foot-dragging in the run-up to the election in November.
Meanwhile, the delays have strengthened Canadian resolve to find new ways of getting tar-sands oil to global markets. This might mean expanding an existing pipeline and building a new one to Canada's west coast for shipment to Asia's oil-thirsty markets. The western province of British Columbia, however, has feisty environmentalists of its own who might yet have a say.
The Chamber of Commerce is gnashing its teeth about the decision, but there are some American businesses who will rejoice at the new delay. The final section of the pipeline would have taken oil from Cushing, Oklahoma, to the Gulf coast, helping to alleviate a persistent price differential between Brent crude, the global benchmark oil, and West Texas Intermediate. Cushing, where most American oil is delivered is landlocked. There is not nearly enough pipeline capacity to the Gulf where global markets set prices. Unfortunately for American drivers, petrol (gasoline) is globally traded. The upshot is that local refiners can buy cheap Cushing crude and sell petrol at dearer global prices. So at least Mr Obama is keeping one lot of businessmen happy.
Quote from: Neil on January 18, 2012, 08:32:24 PM
Quote from: mongers on January 18, 2012, 08:13:48 PM
Quote from: Neil on January 18, 2012, 08:01:44 PM
Quote from: mongers on January 18, 2012, 07:37:14 PM
From my experience, there isn't a whole lot of jobs involved in building a large capacity oil pipeline.
I think the Yanks might being trying to help you Cannucks out, tearing up all of the land for tar sands is kinda short term thinking, with climate change much of that land might potentially become valuable agricultural land eventually. ;)
It's a forest, Mongers. If they attempted to turn it into agricultural land, the environmentalists would engage in a campaign of terror.
Besides, there's no shortage of rich agricultural land in Alberta.
I know it's forest, but with the possibility of climate zones migrating north and south, then it to might be needed for agriculture as other countries suffer from desertification, soil erosion etc
Alberta will be able to feed itself.
Could it defend itself from the ravenous band of Southern neighbours ?
Quote from: mongers on January 18, 2012, 08:48:32 PM
Quote from: Neil on January 18, 2012, 08:32:24 PM
Quote from: mongers on January 18, 2012, 08:13:48 PM
Quote from: Neil on January 18, 2012, 08:01:44 PM
Quote from: mongers on January 18, 2012, 07:37:14 PM
From my experience, there isn't a whole lot of jobs involved in building a large capacity oil pipeline.
I think the Yanks might being trying to help you Cannucks out, tearing up all of the land for tar sands is kinda short term thinking, with climate change much of that land might potentially become valuable agricultural land eventually. ;)
It's a forest, Mongers. If they attempted to turn it into agricultural land, the environmentalists would engage in a campaign of terror.
Besides, there's no shortage of rich agricultural land in Alberta.
I know it's forest, but with the possibility of climate zones migrating north and south, then it to might be needed for agriculture as other countries suffer from desertification, soil erosion etc
Alberta will be able to feed itself.
Could it defend itself from the ravenous band of Southern neighbours ?
Absolutely. The lower races are weak and stupid.
Quote from: mongers on January 18, 2012, 08:13:48 PM
Quote from: Neil on January 18, 2012, 08:01:44 PM
Quote from: mongers on January 18, 2012, 07:37:14 PM
From my experience, there isn't a whole lot of jobs involved in building a large capacity oil pipeline.
I think the Yanks might being trying to help you Cannucks out, tearing up all of the land for tar sands is kinda short term thinking, with climate change much of that land might potentially become valuable agricultural land eventually. ;)
It's a forest, Mongers. If they attempted to turn it into agricultural land, the environmentalists would engage in a campaign of terror.
Besides, there's no shortage of rich agricultural land in Alberta.
I know it's forest, but with the possibility of climate zones migrating north and south, then it to might be needed for agriculture as other countries suffer from desertification, soil erosion etc
Climate isn't the problem Mongers. There are areas further north than Ft. McMurray that are heavily farmed. The problem is the soil, or lack thereof. NE Alberta is just not good farm land.
Plus, you do know they reclaim the land once their done, right?
Quote from: Barrister on January 19, 2012, 09:47:33 AM
Plus, you do know they reclaim the land once their done, right?
but Green Peace tells us they're left as gaping hell holes once they've scrapped out all the oil :( :P ALthough they should really work on not killing so many ducks. bad PR
Also, instead of piping our crude down, why don't we build more refineries here?
Quote from: HVC on January 19, 2012, 10:07:36 AM
Quote from: Barrister on January 19, 2012, 09:47:33 AM
Plus, you do know they reclaim the land once their done, right?
but Green Peace tells us they're left as gaping hell holes once they've scrapped out all the oil :( :P ALthough they should really work on not killing so many ducks. bad PR
Also, instead of piping our crude down, why don't we build more refineries here?
Because they'd probably want to build them in Edmonton, and this town is ugly enough as it is.
Quote from: Barrister on January 19, 2012, 10:08:45 AM
Quote from: HVC on January 19, 2012, 10:07:36 AM
Quote from: Barrister on January 19, 2012, 09:47:33 AM
Plus, you do know they reclaim the land once their done, right?
but Green Peace tells us they're left as gaping hell holes once they've scrapped out all the oil :( :P ALthough they should really work on not killing so many ducks. bad PR
Also, instead of piping our crude down, why don't we build more refineries here?
Because they'd probably want to build them in Edmonton, and this town is ugly enough as it is.
Building them in manitoba. if you plaster jets logo's on the refineries i'm sure the whol province will be ok with it :lol:
Quote from: HVC on January 19, 2012, 10:07:36 AM
Also, instead of piping our crude down, why don't we build more refineries here?
I think you want to build refineries close to your final demand, or a place from which it is easily transportable, like the sea. Not in the middle of nowhere.
Building refineries? I don't think that's possible on our continent anymore.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 19, 2012, 10:12:26 AM
Quote from: HVC on January 19, 2012, 10:07:36 AM
Also, instead of piping our crude down, why don't we build more refineries here?
I think you want to build refineries close to your final demand, or a place from which it is easily transportable, like the sea. Not in the middle of nowhere.
Manitoba was a joke, but what about BC? that opens a trading possibility to asia.
Quote from: HVC on January 19, 2012, 10:18:34 AM
Manitoba was a joke, but what about BC? that opens a trading possibility to asia.
Too anarchic. A refinery would be under constant assault from drug crazed hippy leftists.
Quote from: HVC on January 19, 2012, 10:18:34 AM
Manitoba was a joke, but what about BC? that opens a trading possibility to asia.
It would probably still be a lot cheaper and faster to build the pipeline to the US Gulf Coast than to build the pipeline to BC and then built a metric fuckton of refineries.
How about a pipeline to Lake Michigan?
Or do I mean Superior?
Quote from: grumbler on January 19, 2012, 10:21:26 AM
Quote from: HVC on January 19, 2012, 10:18:34 AM
Manitoba was a joke, but what about BC? that opens a trading possibility to asia.
It would probably still be a lot cheaper and faster to build the pipeline to the US Gulf Coast than to build the pipeline to BC and then built a metric fuckton of refineries.
Except that's pretty much TCPL's Plan B - they're already working on a pipeline to BC.
I don't think they're building refineries though - they'll just ship unrefined crude to asia.
Quote from: Barrister on January 19, 2012, 10:23:10 AM
Except that's pretty much TCPL's Plan B - they're already working on a pipeline to BC.
I don't think they're building refineries though - they'll just ship unrefined crude to asia.
They were working on the pipeline regardless of the status of Keystone. The two pipelines are not at all exclusive. It is possible, though, that much of the additional Canadian production over what they produce now will have to go to Asia if Keystone isn't built, rather than simply having the option. Certainly they need some sort of pipeline because the high cost of extraction already leaves canada set up for a commodity crash, and high transport costs for expensive crude simply compounds the vulnerability.
I suppose it does make more sense for Canada to export crude and leave the big value-added steps of the petro cycle for the more advanced countries, who can do it efficiently.
Quote from: grumbler on January 19, 2012, 11:14:05 AM
I suppose it does make more sense for Canada to export crude and leave the big value-added steps of the petro cycle for the more advanced countries, who can do it efficiently.
It only makes "sense" in that refining oil is a dirty job (and CO2 intensive) and thus it is politically easier to let the Chinese do it - we already get a ton of flack for extracting the stuff in the first place. BUt economically of course it makes no sense whatsoever.
The US needs the oil, and it's obviously a much better idea to get it from Canada than from Venezuela or the Mid East. I don't understand the opposition to an additional pipeline. We can't make the entire US an enviro haven. Canada will produce the oil regardless of what we do, and just sell it elsewhere. I'm sure part of this is the angst felt by enviros and others who have some idea that we need to wean ourselves off of oil and this is somehow helpful in that cause. But it will likely do nothing of the sort while we have to continue imports from less stable/friendly nations.
First Obama 2012 ad released... bragging about energy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sq3GGwgV7R0
Quote from: Barrister on January 18, 2012, 02:26:17 PM
But trying to reduce oil consumption by attacking potential sources of oil seems to me to be the most asinine way of fighting global warming I can think of.
Huh? It's actually the most logical way. It makes fossil fuels more expensive are so alternatives become capable to compete earlier and less carbon is actually released to the atmosphere.
US needs to go nuclear anyway. That way Wyoming miners get more jobs.
Quote from: Iormlund on January 19, 2012, 02:12:01 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 18, 2012, 02:26:17 PM
But trying to reduce oil consumption by attacking potential sources of oil seems to me to be the most asinine way of fighting global warming I can think of.
Huh? It's actually the most logical way. It makes fossil fuels more expensive are so alternatives become capable to compete earlier and less carbon is actually released to the atmosphere.
That's assuming some omnipotent power can prevent new drilling/surveying all over the globe. Absent that, high oil prices are going to spur more exploration and encourage improvements in drilling technology. Of course that will also encourage research for alternatives, but if you're looking for a return on investment that you'll realize in your lifetime, which do you think is the safest bet?
Quote from: derspiess on January 19, 2012, 02:26:40 PM
That's assuming some omnipotent power can prevent new drilling/surveying all over the globe. Absent that, high oil prices are going to spur more exploration and encourage improvements in drilling technology. Of course that will also encourage research for alternatives, but if you're looking for a return on investment that you'll realize in your lifetime, which do you think is the safest bet?
I don't know. Hybrid technology has done pretty well. After all when we are talking about "alternatives" to gasoline these days what we are really talking about are electric engines and it is not like that is a distant pipe dream.
Quote from: Iormlund on January 19, 2012, 02:12:01 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 18, 2012, 02:26:17 PM
But trying to reduce oil consumption by attacking potential sources of oil seems to me to be the most asinine way of fighting global warming I can think of.
Huh? It's actually the most logical way. It makes fossil fuels more expensive are so alternatives become capable to compete earlier and less carbon is actually released to the atmosphere.
It's not as if people don't want to use alternative fuels. They don't because they just don't exist or are prohibitively expensive. All moves like this do are drive up the cost to consumers in a rather haphazard manner, and spur on new exploration and development in places not under your control.
If government wants to increase taxes through a carbon tax or something else, that's one thing. But to try and shut down oil production as a means of saving the planet it's ludicrous.
Quote from: Iormlund on January 19, 2012, 02:12:01 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 18, 2012, 02:26:17 PM
But trying to reduce oil consumption by attacking potential sources of oil seems to me to be the most asinine way of fighting global warming I can think of.
Huh? It's actually the most logical way. It makes fossil fuels more expensive are so alternatives become capable to compete earlier and less carbon is actually released to the atmosphere.
But it's one sided. you raise the costs of getting canadian crude, but there's still other crude out there. So really by doing this you hurt NA and enrich crackpots and dictators (often one and the same)
Quote from: PDH on January 19, 2012, 02:20:21 PM
US needs to go nuclear anyway. That way Wyoming miners get more jobs.
Child labor is illegal.
Quote from: Barrister on January 19, 2012, 09:47:33 AM
Plus, you do know they reclaim the land once their done, right?
:lol:
Quote from: Valmy on January 19, 2012, 02:31:56 PM
I don't know. Hybrid technology has done pretty well. After all when we are talking about "alternatives" to gasoline these days what we are really talking about are electric engines and it is not like that is a distant pipe dream.
He was talking about alternatives to fossil fuels. Hybrid & fully electric cars are great and all, but they still ultimately rely on fossil fuels for their power.
Quote from: derspiess on January 20, 2012, 10:56:54 AM
He was talking about alternatives to fossil fuels. Hybrid & fully electric cars are great and all, but they still ultimately rely on fossil fuels for their power.
Any sane person, who doesn't embrace stupid things like biofuels, knows that the most promising avenue for alternatives are in electricity generation not fuels. And oil is very rarely used for that (like less than 1% of all power generation) so I fail to see how blocking pipelines is going to help in that. They need to block coal and natural gas for that. Environmentalist fail? Not that Environmentalists are really great allies for alternative fuel backers. They tend to just not like the idea of having fuel or electricity in general :P
Quote from: The Brain on January 19, 2012, 03:48:40 PM
Quote from: PDH on January 19, 2012, 02:20:21 PM
US needs to go nuclear anyway. That way Wyoming miners get more jobs.
Child labor is illegal.
It's the principal of the thing though!
Quote from: Valmy on January 20, 2012, 11:00:59 AM
Quote from: derspiess on January 20, 2012, 10:56:54 AM
He was talking about alternatives to fossil fuels. Hybrid & fully electric cars are great and all, but they still ultimately rely on fossil fuels for their power.
Any sane person, who doesn't embrace stupid things like biofuels, knows that the most promising avenue for alternatives are in electricity generation not fuels. And oil is very rarely used for that (like less than 1% of all power generation) so I fail to see how blocking pipelines is going to help in that. They need to block coal and natural gas for that. Environmentalist fail? Not that Environmentalists are really great allies for alternative fuel backers. They tend to just not like the idea of having fuel or electricity in general :P
Your TV is full of ads for clean coal.
Quote from: KRonn on January 19, 2012, 11:24:33 AM
The US needs the oil, and it's obviously a much better idea to get it from Canada than from Venezuela or the Mid East.
No, it's not.
QuoteI don't understand the opposition to an additional pipeline. We can't make the entire US an enviro haven. Canada will produce the oil regardless of what we do, and just sell it elsewhere. I'm sure part of this is the angst felt by enviros and others who have some idea that we need to wean ourselves off of oil and this is somehow helpful in that cause. But it will likely do nothing of the sort while we have to continue imports from less stable/friendly nations.
These are fungible commodities traded on the world market on a single currency, so it helps nothing with price stabilization; every barrel that we put on the market is one barrel the Mideast rolls back from production, extending their strategic reserves while shrinking ours. It's stupid.
The sooner we suck the Middle East dry, the sooner they become as relevant as subsaharan Africa.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 20, 2012, 02:23:16 PM
Quote from: KRonn on January 19, 2012, 11:24:33 AM
The US needs the oil, and it's obviously a much better idea to get it from Canada than from Venezuela or the Mid East.
No, it's not.
QuoteI don't understand the opposition to an additional pipeline. We can't make the entire US an enviro haven. Canada will produce the oil regardless of what we do, and just sell it elsewhere. I'm sure part of this is the angst felt by enviros and others who have some idea that we need to wean ourselves off of oil and this is somehow helpful in that cause. But it will likely do nothing of the sort while we have to continue imports from less stable/friendly nations.
These are fungible commodities traded on the world market on a single currency, so it helps nothing with price stabilization; every barrel that we put on the market is one barrel the Mideast rolls back from production, extending their strategic reserves while shrinking ours. It's stupid.
The sooner we suck the Middle East dry, the sooner they become as relevant as subsaharan Africa.
This will take a very,very long time. Saudi Arabia, Iran. Iraq and others I've forgotten in the Gulf all have reserves that will far out last all other reserves* at the current rates of production. :hmm:
* There maybe a handful of other countries that have more sustainable extraction programs.
Quote from: Neil on January 20, 2012, 01:19:56 PM
Your TV is full of ads for clean coal.
I am a: Friend of Coal :D
Quote from: grumbler on January 19, 2012, 11:14:05 AM
Quote from: Barrister on January 19, 2012, 10:23:10 AM
Except that's pretty much TCPL's Plan B - they're already working on a pipeline to BC.
I don't think they're building refineries though - they'll just ship unrefined crude to asia.
They were working on the pipeline regardless of the status of Keystone. The two pipelines are not at all exclusive. It is possible, though, that much of the additional Canadian production over what they produce now will have to go to Asia if Keystone isn't built.
Yeah, you are right about that Grumbler. The pipeline through BC to Kitimat to transport to Asia is a completely different project and being buit by a competitor of TransCanada. Ironically the rejection of Keystone greatly improves the likelihood of the BC pipeline approval since it will be seen as much more of an economic imperative now that selling into the US has become less certain.
and fyi for all, BC already has a refinery located at a port just outside Vancouver (in Burnaby). Although it would likely be politically difficult to increase production at that location in order to process the oil from the tar sands.
Poll: Public says Keystone XL a jobs win
78 percent of Americans say a pipeline would create a "significant amount of jobs."
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/72199.html (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/72199.html)
Quote from: Phillip V on January 31, 2012, 01:29:04 PM
Poll: Public says Keystone XL a jobs win
78 percent of Americans say a pipeline would create a "significant amount of jobs."
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/72199.html (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/72199.html)
How in the world is this a relevant question for an opinion survey? The pipeline would either create a lot of jobs or it wouldn't. The percentage of people who think it would doesn't change anything.
Quote from: Neil on January 20, 2012, 01:19:56 PM
Your TV is full of ads for clean coal.
Wouldn't exactly be the first time something stupid was broadcast on American TV.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 31, 2012, 01:32:54 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on January 31, 2012, 01:29:04 PM
Poll: Public says Keystone XL a jobs win
78 percent of Americans say a pipeline would create a "significant amount of jobs."
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/72199.html (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/72199.html)
How in the world is this a relevant question for an opinion survey? The pipeline would either create a lot of jobs or it wouldn't. The percentage of people who think it would doesn't change anything.
And how could it not create some jobs for a period of time. The question is whether or not those jobs are worth everything else that comes with a pipline.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 31, 2012, 01:32:54 PM
How in the world is this a relevant question for an opinion survey? The pipeline would either create a lot of jobs or it wouldn't. The percentage of people who think it would doesn't change anything.
Also - unless the pipeline can build itself, it will by defintion require labor to construct.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 31, 2012, 01:32:54 PM
How in the world is this a relevant question for an opinion survey? The pipeline would either create a lot of jobs or it wouldn't. The percentage of people who think it would doesn't change anything.
You're right. But it matters for the politics. That's why it's on Politico not Bloomberg.
Pipelines don't create many jobs and often those aren't suitable for locals anyway; the highly skilled welders will move from job to job around the country/world
Welders have to eat.
Quote from: mongers on January 31, 2012, 02:03:02 PM
Pipelines don't create many jobs and often those aren't suitable for locals anyway; the highly skilled welders will move from job to job around the country/world
Involves a lot of less skilled work too though - all that excavating and trenching.
But I agree the job impact of pipeline construction is going to be fairly small.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 31, 2012, 02:15:13 PM
Welders have to eat.
Trust me the ones I used to know, got the vast majority of their calories from drinking. ;)
Quote from: mongers on January 31, 2012, 02:24:25 PM
Trust me the ones I used to know, got the vast majority of their calories from drinking. ;)
The margins on that are even better!
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 31, 2012, 02:39:30 PM
Quote from: mongers on January 31, 2012, 02:24:25 PM
Trust me the ones I used to know, got the vast majority of their calories from drinking. ;)
The margins on that are even better!
:P
So JR you'd also defend defence spending as an effective job creation scheme, because we're in that territory re multiplier effects.
or with my hippy hat on, public works not war. :)
Im saying that the proposition that building a giant pipeline generates jobs is a truism.
that in itself it not a reason to do it or not do it.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 31, 2012, 03:53:20 PM
Im saying that the proposition that building a giant pipeline generates jobs is a truism.
that in itself it not a reason to do it or not do it.
Well that's not saying much is it, we were discussing the how many it might generate.
And indeed you're right it should be a reason at all, but that was the idiotic suggestion from the politician involved.
Maybe if Canada would sponsor more terrorism we'd buy more oil from them.
Quote from: Zoupa on January 20, 2012, 02:32:54 AM
Quote from: Barrister on January 19, 2012, 09:47:33 AM
Plus, you do know they reclaim the land once their done, right?
:lol:
Beeb drinks your milkshake. He drinks it up.
By a nearly 2-to-1 margin, a majority of Americans think the government should approve the building of the Keystone XL pipeline, according to a new Gallup poll Thursday.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/74342.html (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/74342.html)
Quote from: Phillip V on March 22, 2012, 09:23:53 AM
By a nearly 2-to-1 margin, a majority of Americans think the government should approve the building of the Keystone XL pipeline, according to a new Gallup poll Thursday.
And it will be, once the appropriate environmental impact studies are completed.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 22, 2012, 09:27:48 AM
Quote from: Phillip V on March 22, 2012, 09:23:53 AM
By a nearly 2-to-1 margin, a majority of Americans think the government should approve the building of the Keystone XL pipeline, according to a new Gallup poll Thursday.
And it will be, once the appropriate environmental impact studies are completed.
:lol:
Quote from: derspiess on March 22, 2012, 09:46:15 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 22, 2012, 09:27:48 AM
Quote from: Phillip V on March 22, 2012, 09:23:53 AM
By a nearly 2-to-1 margin, a majority of Americans think the government should approve the building of the Keystone XL pipeline, according to a new Gallup poll Thursday.
And it will be, once the appropriate environmental impact studies are completed.
:lol:
We will build no pipeline before its time.
Quote from: derspiess on March 22, 2012, 09:46:15 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 22, 2012, 09:27:48 AM
Quote from: Phillip V on March 22, 2012, 09:23:53 AM
By a nearly 2-to-1 margin, a majority of Americans think the government should approve the building of the Keystone XL pipeline, according to a new Gallup poll Thursday.
And it will be, once the appropriate environmental impact studies are completed.
:lol:
Yeah imagine actually following the law. What kind of rube President do we have that thinks he has to faithfully execute the laws as written?
The Jew Minsky has a good point. I have no problem with any pipelines. Obama shouldn't have allowed the Republicans to get him on this issue.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 22, 2012, 01:45:22 PM
Yeah imagine actually following the law. What kind of rube President do we have that thinks he has to faithfully execute the laws as written?
Go on.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 22, 2012, 01:45:22 PM
Yeah imagine actually following the law. What kind of rube President do we have that thinks he has to faithfully execute the laws as written?
You can't be serious. You really think it was the purest of coincidences that the study was scheduled to be completed after the general election?
And with the recent announcement in Oklahoma that Obama is fasttracking the bottom portion of the pipeline, is that a case of faithfully or unfaithfully executing the laws?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 22, 2012, 02:14:27 PM
You can't be serious. You really think it was the purest of coincidences that the study was scheduled to be completed after the general election?
I have no idea how the schedule was set - you tell me. What is the usual time for completing a NEPA review for a pipeline of this size?
QuoteAnd with the recent announcement in Oklahoma that Obama is fasttracking the bottom portion of the pipeline, is that a case of faithfully or unfaithfully executing the laws?
If the law permits the President to set an accelerated review schedule for that part of the project, then he is faithfully executing the laws. If it doesn't, then he isn't.
That has nothing to do with the decision made in January, when TransCanada deliberately submitted an incomplete application
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 22, 2012, 02:32:30 PM
I have no idea how the schedule was set - you tell me. What is the usual time for completing a NEPA review for a pipeline of this size?
It turns out now that the scheduling is negotiable.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 22, 2012, 02:41:04 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 22, 2012, 02:32:30 PM
I have no idea how the schedule was set - you tell me. What is the usual time for completing a NEPA review for a pipeline of this size?
It turns out now that the scheduling is negotiable.
I'm not sure that's right - IIRC there are additional requirements for a cross-border project that TC is now getting around by just submitting the lower half for approval.
But even if it was true, so what? If TC wanted to negotiate a schedule, it should have done that instead of submitting an incomplete application and daring the President to take the political heat by denying it.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 22, 2012, 02:45:27 PM
But even if it was true, so what? If TC wanted to negotiate a schedule, it should have done that instead of submitting an incomplete application and daring the President to take the political heat by denying it.
The so what is that the orginal schedule was set for reasons of political expediency, not legal requirement. Which is why Speiss was justified in laughing at Seedy's post and why you were unjustified in taking exception.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 22, 2012, 01:45:22 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 22, 2012, 09:46:15 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 22, 2012, 09:27:48 AM
Quote from: Phillip V on March 22, 2012, 09:23:53 AM
By a nearly 2-to-1 margin, a majority of Americans think the government should approve the building of the Keystone XL pipeline, according to a new Gallup poll Thursday.
And it will be, once the appropriate environmental impact studies are completed.
:lol:
Yeah imagine actually following the law. What kind of rube President do we have that thinks he has to faithfully execute the laws as written?
Environmental assessments are all done on a state level.
The President is only involved because it crosses an international boundary, and thus requires approval from the State Department (not the EPA, Interior Dep't, or anyone else with any experience in environmental issues).
Quote from: Barrister on March 22, 2012, 02:50:14 PM
The President is only involved because it crosses an international boundary, and thus requires approval from the State Department (not the EPA, Interior Dep't, or anyone else with any experience in environmental issues).
That is technically true, in the limited sense that the other agencies don't have to give formal approval. But State is required to consult the other agencies and obtain their opinions as to whether the project complies with a number of federal laws. State also has to consider whether additional information is required in light of what their sister agencies says.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 22, 2012, 03:02:36 PM
Quote from: Barrister on March 22, 2012, 02:50:14 PM
The President is only involved because it crosses an international boundary, and thus requires approval from the State Department (not the EPA, Interior Dep't, or anyone else with any experience in environmental issues).
That is technically true, in the limited sense that the other agencies don't have to give formal approval. But State is required to consult the other agencies and obtain their opinions as to whether the project complies with a number of federal laws. State also has to consider whether additional information is required in light of what their sister agencies says.
The EPA still has a a legal say:
QuoteHowever, EPA has a unique responsibility in the NEPA review process. Under Section 309 of the Clean Air Act, EPA is required to review and publicly comment on the environmental impacts of major federal actions, including actions which are the subject of EISs. If EPA determines that the action is environmentally unsatisfactory, it is required by Section 309 to refer the matter to CEQ.
http://www.epa.gov/compliance/basics/nepa.html#eis
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 22, 2012, 09:27:48 AM
Quote from: Phillip V on March 22, 2012, 09:23:53 AM
By a nearly 2-to-1 margin, a majority of Americans think the government should approve the building of the Keystone XL pipeline, according to a new Gallup poll Thursday.
And it will be, once the appropriate environmental impact studies are completed.
Which they were before State granted approval.
Oh, you mean the second set of environmental impact studies which will be conveniently completed after the election. :lmfao:
Quote from: Hansmeister on March 23, 2012, 06:50:40 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 22, 2012, 09:27:48 AM
Quote from: Phillip V on March 22, 2012, 09:23:53 AM
By a nearly 2-to-1 margin, a majority of Americans think the government should approve the building of the Keystone XL pipeline, according to a new Gallup poll Thursday.
And it will be, once the appropriate environmental impact studies are completed.
Which they were before State granted approval.
Oh, you mean the second set of environmental impact studies which will be conveniently completed after the election. :lmfao:
These things take time.
Quote from: Hansmeister on March 23, 2012, 06:50:40 AM
Which they were before State granted approval.
State didn't approval - not sure what this is supposed to be referring to.
State did the studies they were required by law to do, and both the EIS and Nebraska state officials pointed out a problem with the route through Nebraska and suggested an alternative route. The Nebraska comments were driven in significant part by ranching interests who would have been adversely affected, and allied with environmentalists. In November, the Republican governor of Nebraska and the Republican state legislature passed a law mandating that the Nebrasks route be altered. and allocated state funding for a new environmental review. At the same time State authorized a new EIS to analyze the proposed new route. Yet in December the GOP members in Congress tried to force a yea-or-nay on approval by January 2012, which was just a cheap political stunt designed to force a disapproval.
All this needs to put into proper context. The actual Keystone pipeline proper (the "mainline") has already been built. The current discussion is about the extension to that pipeline ("XL"). The XL has two components. The "lower" portion links the current terminus in Cushing, OK to the Gulf Coast. Cushing is a principal oil storage facilitiy and also happens to be the delivery point for the benchmark WTI contract. The problem with Cushing is that it is landlocked and that has caused distortion in the WTI index and pushed up stockpiles as domestic production of oil has increased over the past few years. The advantage of the lower portion is that it connects the existing pipeline with GC refineries that are already set up to refine low quality crudes and permits re-export by sea if desired. Because the lower portion would link up the existing pipeline route, the lower portion is desriable in and of itself, a fact that eludes the gargantuan mind of Newt Gingrich.
The proposed upper portion would have the effect of increasing total capacity and allowing additional US production to be fed into the system. It would be nice to have but not essential. One alternative would be increasing refinery capacity in existing Midwest terminuses although that takes time and might pose NIMBY problems of its own. Of course, building a pipeline does nothing to increase the supply of oil and the effects on prices, if any, are subtle. It certainly doesn't alter the fundamentals of the international market and supply and demand conditions for oil. Because oil sand production is very expensive (comparatively) it would not facilitate a Gingrichian 2.50/gallon gas price; indeed, sustained prices at the level would render oil sand production uneconomic at present day extraction technology. What it might do would decrease transport costs somewhat and probably allow the GC refineries to run more efficiently and save some $ on input costs.
So basically Obama caved to special interest groups and decided to put off the decision until after the election.
Oh, the document you seem to be confused of can be found on the state dept website. http://www.keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov/clientsite/keystonexl.nsf/03_KXL_FEIS_Executive_Summary.pdf (http://www.keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov/clientsite/keystonexl.nsf/03_KXL_FEIS_Executive_Summary.pdf)
Funny thing is that state seems to have considered alternate routes as well. It is all quite complete. And of course increasing supply of oil to the US market has an impact on oil prices on the US market. Econ 101. There is a reason oil prices vary around the world (and indeed within the US) and hat has to do with delivery costs, which would be much lower coming from a pipeline in Canada vs being shipped from abroad.
Obama is just bowing to the Gaia-worshipped, it is no surprise that Obama suddenly grew cold feet when they started threaten to withhold support for his reelection.
But nice WH spin there.
Quote from: Hansmeister on March 23, 2012, 11:15:23 AM
So basically Obama caved to special interest groups and decided to put off the decision until after the election.
No - the GOP governor and legislature in Nebraska caved to the special interest groups.
QuoteOh, the document you seem to be confused of can be found on the state dept website. http://www.keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov/clientsite/keystonexl.nsf/03_KXL_FEIS_Executive_Summary.pdf (http://www.keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov/clientsite/keystonexl.nsf/03_KXL_FEIS_Executive_Summary.pdf)
No confusion on my part. The document clearly states the project is subject to approvals, not that approval has been granted.
QuoteState seems to have considered alternate routes as well. It is all quite complete.
Yes they did and they concluded the other routes were even worse. So once Nebraska directed the route change, Obama would have had valid grounds to shut down the entire upper part permanently based on the EIS. Instead he sent the new proposed route back to State for re-evaluation, which I think it the better approach, no?
QuoteAnd of course increasing supply of oil to the US market has an impact on oil prices on the US market. Econ 101. There is a reason oil prices vary around the world (and indeed within the US) and hat has to do with delivery costs, which would be much lower coming from a pipeline in Canada vs being shipped from abroad.
It won't significantly increase the supply of oil available to the US market; what is will do is divert landlocked oil that would have gone to Midwestern refineries and allow it go to the Gulf Coast refineries, and it will permit the Canadian crude to compete with (and substitute for) overseas oil shipped into the GC. The market for oil is global and while localized pricing anomolies can arise, they tend to be temporary. The principal pricing anomoly in the US oil market is the piling up of stocks at Cushing due to the lack of an outlet from Cushing to the coast. The result is that WTI prices are quite a bit cheaper than Brent. Far from being a shortage of crude on the US mainland, there is excess supply - the problem is relative lack of refinery capacity with respect to the refineries connected to Cushing (and even that is being remedied). Accordingly some analysts think the project may actually force gasoline prices upwards in the northern US because midwestern-based refiners will have to bid higher against the GC refineries to secure crude supply. IMO this is going a bit far, but there is no reason to think there will be any meaningul effect in terms of lower pump prices.
What the XL project will do that is positive is increase the profitability of the GC refineries and diversify the crude supply available to those refineries. Both are very useful things. More profits for US companies are a good thing, especially if it prompts additional investment. And to the extent access to Canadian crude leads to less reliance on imports from Venezuela, that is a plus as well. But note that much of those advantages are secured once the lower half connecting Cushing to the Gulf is built out. The upper extension is gravy.
QuoteObama is just bowing to the Gaia-worshipped
Only fair, to balance off the Saudi princes.
Pres Obama hates Brown (Oil) people.... :(
These Hans-Minsky debates are always so much fun. Hans cribs an argument from the NRO, is shot down, and then just vanishes for a few days.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 23, 2012, 01:58:17 PM
These Hans-Minsky debates are always so much fun. Hans cribs an argument from the NRO, is shot down, and then just vanishes for a few days.
His visits here tend to be brief, regardless how an argument is going for him. And I don't think he's been shot down in this thread.
Quote from: Hansmeister on March 23, 2012, 11:15:23 AM
So basically Obama caved to special interest groups and decided to put off the decision until after the election.
That's not caving to special interest groups though. If you put the decision off until you don't need the special interest groups anymore, that's called being smart.
Quote from: derspiess on March 23, 2012, 02:07:29 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 23, 2012, 01:58:17 PM
These Hans-Minsky debates are always so much fun. Hans cribs an argument from the NRO, is shot down, and then just vanishes for a few days.
His visits here tend to be brief, regardless how an argument is going for him. And I don't think he's been shot down in this thread.
Of course you don't, lapdog.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 22, 2012, 02:32:30 PM
I have no idea how the schedule was set - you tell me. What is the usual time for completing a NEPA review for a pipeline of this size?
I while back I did some work with one of the larger pipeline companies in the US, and was told that it had been a long time since a major pipeline had been built and the company was of the opinion that a major US pipeline would never again be built (or at least in the forseeable future). The thinking was that between the environmental impact, the nimbyism, and the cost of real estate (now that we have many more urban and suburban areas) the expense and trouble of building a new pipeline didn't make sense (especially while current pipelines have so many opportunities for upgrade).
It wouldn't suprise me if there simply isn't a usual timeline because this sort of project is something we stopped doing decades ago.
Quote from: alfred russel on March 23, 2012, 03:22:26 PM
It wouldn't suprise me if there simply isn't a usual timeline because this sort of project is something we stopped doing decades ago.
Yeah, there is a lot of reinventing of the wheel on both sides of the border. Except this time we are trying to invent a wheel that will land on Mars rather then simply move a model T along. The complexity, at least on this side of the border, his huge. I imagine it is similar for you.
Yeah, this is much more complex then the Transnational Maple Syrup Sluice built back in 1908.
Quote from: alfred russel on March 23, 2012, 03:22:26 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 22, 2012, 02:32:30 PM
I have no idea how the schedule was set - you tell me. What is the usual time for completing a NEPA review for a pipeline of this size?
I while back I did some work with one of the larger pipeline companies in the US, and was told that it had been a long time since a major pipeline had been built and the company was of the opinion that a major US pipeline would never again be built (or at least in the forseeable future). The thinking was that between the environmental impact, the nimbyism, and the cost of real estate (now that we have many more urban and suburban areas) the expense and trouble of building a new pipeline didn't make sense (especially while current pipelines have so many opportunities for upgrade).
It wouldn't suprise me if there simply isn't a usual timeline because this sort of project is something we stopped doing decades ago.
Yet the keystone mainline was built quite recently.
Wyoming has had a couple of pipelines built across or starting here in the last 20 years....of course that might mean that pipelines are only built in low population, low value land areas...