• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

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
 
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.
 
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.
 
Back
Top Bottom