Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 678
Results 71 to 78 of 78

Thread: Could US lose access to Keystone oil? Canada moves to Plan B

  1. #71
    Question authority
    Grand Mal's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    on an island off the left coast of Canada
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    16,504
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Could US lose access to Keystone oil? Canada moves to Plan B

    Quote Originally Posted by Fred View Post
    Central Alberta hydrocarbon upgrading projects are booming:
    Project Status
    from
    Alberta's Industrial Heartland
    Edmonton Journal Article

    The hydrogen plant is done ( to upgrade the Ft Mac oilsands ), when upgraded a lot easier to ship, more options for markets.

    It's a fairly large boom, labour shortage is throttling it a bit, quite a few good paying job - help wanted -roadside billboard rental signs out, not enough workers. Airports , road and rail expanding.

    They'll tie into the existing oil pipelines south after upgrading, for now. Keystone ( or equivelant ) will get built within a decade, irrespective of the politics.
    There's speculation about Tuk being a viable deep-water port one day. You might have a MacKenzie Valley pipeline comin' your way.
    Pretty warm for January up by you, I hear.
    "I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid people. I meant that stupid people are generally Conservatives."
    -John Stuart Mill-

  2. #72
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    okla-freakin-homa
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    12,632

    Re: Could US lose access to Keystone oil? Canada moves to Plan B

    Quote Originally Posted by AlabamaPaul View Post
    If those with this knowledge are currently unemployed, would it not be better to have policies that would re-employ them?
    Actually there is a HUGE upswing in oil rigs and employment in the oil patch- from the Dakotas, to Oklahoma and Texas due to fracking and the upsurge in use of Natural gas. Refineries are not shutting down, the pipeline system for NG is being expanded and upgraded.

    The pipeline will have no real permanent employment affect, well maybe for toxic waste disposal.

  3. #73
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    okla-freakin-homa
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    12,632

    Re: Could US lose access to Keystone oil? Canada moves to Plan B

    Quote Originally Posted by joko104 View Post
    I do. It's because Americans now want something for nothing, believing it will just magically appear and that someone owes it to them. They want what that oil provides, they want the jobs of it and they want economic wealth. But they want it all for free. So they don't want the bother of a pipeline or risks of one. So Obama has - again - sold Americans that they can have something for nothing - to give up the oil and still have it. The radical "greenies" will explain "oil is a global market," so it will come back here anyway after refined elsewhere - and those jobs elsewhere. Then we only risk mass environmental damage of a tanker sinking, have to pay markups for loading it, shipping to that foreign refinery, pay to load it back on a ship, and pay to off load it back here. So no jobs. Twice the price. Of course, the foreign country it is going to is on another planet, so if there is an oil spill on their land it will not affect earth - and since all waters of the oceans continuously are flowing away from the United States, no oil tanker sinking could possibly harm us. Rather, it would float on top of the ocean flowing until it fell off the end of the flat earth into space. Those are the reasons.
    You sure seem intent on making up 'facts'.

    There is no shortage of 'good' crude to refine, there will be no new refineries built for the sludge. capacity in refining will be diverted to handle the tar sludge. The oil will not come back to the USofA until it is turned into cheap consumer crap in China. China needs oil and damn sure will not refine it to send it to us- they will USE it.

    So a tanker sinking is mass environmental damage- then you agree that deep water offshore drilling runs the same massive risk? The BP oil spill in the Gulf was a HUGE disaster?

    Now when it comes to oil at twice the price- the process to make tar sands 'flow' in a pipeline, the chemicals to strip the tar from the sands, liquefy the tar and then must be removed at the Gulf refineries are not 'free'. You seem intent on making the toxic sludge seem cheap, it isn't.

  4. #74
    Pragmatic Idealist
    upsideguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Rocky Mtn. High
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    10,133

    Re: Could US lose access to Keystone oil? Canada moves to Plan B

    Quote Originally Posted by MrVicchio View Post
    I see, you are willfully ignorant! You think it's a "Build the pipe and that's it?" The oil gets refined,m the pipe has to be maintained... it has to be loaded on to ships... ya know, those long term things people like you ignore.
    No, there just aren't that many jobs there. Did you read the article? Do you have an appropriate counter or are we just arguing my substantiated assertions v your impressions? Talk about ignorance? If you think otherwise. lets see the goods. What is the basis of your claim that this is worthy of congressional time and attention vis-a-vis other things they could do to create jobs?

    Sorry, but in the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary, my evidence says this is not a substantial job creator.


    (getting tired of these people that have no game)....
    Last edited by upsideguy; 01-20-14 at 12:59 AM.

  5. #75
    Sage
    Renae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    San Antonio Texas
    Last Seen
    10-23-17 @ 10:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    38,972
    Blog Entries
    15

    Re: Could US lose access to Keystone oil? Canada moves to Plan B

    Quote Originally Posted by upsideguy View Post
    No, there just aren't that many jobs there. Did you read the article? Do you have an appropriate counter or are we just arguing my substantiated assertions v your impressions? Talk about ignorance? If you think otherwise. lets see the goods. What is the basis of your claim that this is worthy of congressional time and attention vis-a-vis other things they could do to create jobs?

    Sorry, but in the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary, my evidence says this is not a substantial job creator.


    (getting tired of these people that have no game)....
    You dont care about the jobs, do you? Not enough for you? Wealth, jobs going elsewhere and you dont care why? Because if what
    Climate, changes. It takes a particularly uneducated population to buy into the idea that it's their fault climate is changing and further political solutions can fix it.



  6. #76
    User
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Norman Wells , NorthWest Territories, Canada
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 03:32 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    25

    Re: Could US lose access to Keystone oil? Canada moves to Plan B

    Quote Originally Posted by Grand Mal View Post
    There's speculation about Tuk being a viable deep-water port one day. You might have a MacKenzie Valley pipeline comin' your way.
    Pretty warm for January up by you, I hear.
    Weather was nicer, sent the cold to New York for a bit still nice for Jan, "url=https://flightplanning.navcanada.ca/cgi-bin/Fore-obs/metar.cgi]METAR[/url] CYUB 220400Z ... WIND 120 TRUE @ 15 KNOTS
    GUSTS 21 KNOTS TEMP -18 C / DEWPOINT / -24 C DRIFTING SNOW .."

    I think the one large driver for the Mckenzie pipeline -the large natural gas formation in the Beaufort Sea and Mackenzie Delta , now has a lowered appeal due to the glut of Ch4 from U.S Shale and fracking.

    Demand and price has faded for gas . They are building an all season road to the Arctic ocean, Inuvik to Tuk, ( Feds are promoting it `Can drive from sea to sea to sea ). Needs a six foot high gravel base to keep the permafrost frozen ; but I think a deep port in Tuktoyaktuk is far off. December sea ice is pretty heavy this year, pretty thick to get out west past Point Barrow. It looks more like mid 1980s december ice. Still too much ice to be in the cards -open water season still too short to make it financially viable, I`d guess a military deep port would go into Nunavat , first , if any were built.

    The Northern gateway pipeline is working it`s way through the system:
    Northern Gateway pipeline recommended for federal approval, with conditions - Calgary - CBC News

    Tough to predict . I`m guessing the money will remove the obstructions to construction

  7. #77
    Sage

    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Last Seen
    12-04-17 @ 09:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    12,361

    Re: Could US lose access to Keystone oil? Canada moves to Plan B

    I would recommend the Canadians run a pipeline to British Columbia or Nova Scotia. That will give them control over the exports. Personally, I wouldn't trust the U.S. government for anything. Our government is in the business of getting in the way of things, not helping things.

  8. #78
    User
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Norman Wells , NorthWest Territories, Canada
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 03:32 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    25

    Re: Could US lose access to Keystone oil? Canada moves to Plan B

    Quote Originally Posted by fmw View Post
    I would recommend the Canadians run a pipeline to British Columbia or Nova Scotia. That will give them control over the exports. Personally, I wouldn't trust the U.S. government for anything. Our government is in the business of getting in the way of things, not helping things.
    They're working on it ( expanded east west flow ) -
    Why is Keystone so important to supporters and opponents? | Toronto Star

    TransCanadas 'Energy East", Enbridge doubling the eastward flow in their Alberta Clipper, and the Northern Gateway to Kitimat BC, to export oil across the Pacific, made it through the first legal hurdle.

    That will give them control over the exports.
    Unfortunately-no. Most Canadians suffer under the illusion that Canada has oil, considering that there are a few hundred billion barrels of recoverable hydrocarbon in Alberta. But Canadas oil is controlled in Houston and Washington, Canada is one of the few oil exporting countries with no energy policy.

    Article 605 of the North American Free Trade agreement ensures continued American control. Mexico was smart enought to reject that clause -that states you can't jack the price, you can't throttle the flow...etc.
    Oil flow to the U.S can not be decreased.

Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 678

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •