Obama officially rejects Keystone XL

[viper37]

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.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Who 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.)

[Valmy]

I'm guessing Valmy was joking about Buffett. Buffett has profited from the opposition to Keystone due to his ownership of BNSF,

Yeah sorry.

[KRonn]

Who 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. 

[DGuller]

From the article:

The 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.

[KRonn]

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.

[mongers]

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 Minsky Moment]

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.

[Kleves]

This is a useful reminder that harming the country for political purposes is something that both parties can agree on.

[Admiral Yi]

Mightn't it be a moot point anyway, if Trudeau fils' commitment to emission caps renders the tar sands uneconomical?

[Razgovory]

Bleh.  I didn't get the bitching about the pipelines.  Oil pipelines already crisscross the country.  So what if they build another?

[Barrister]

Mightn't it be a moot point anyway, if Trudeau fils' commitment to emission caps renders the tar sands uneconomical?

Oil sands!

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.

[MadImmortalMan]

http://bismarcktribune.com/bakken/north-dakota-town-evacuated-after-oil-cars-derail-and-catch/article_992b4c53-24f4-54fd-a657-9943d69fca0c.html

[Admiral Yi]

Oil sands!

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.

[Neil]

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.