Keystone oil sands pipeline rejected

Gill · Jan 25, 2012

tecoyah said:
I did not state the protesters were amongst those directly impacted...nor did I imply it in any way. I stated thousands would be impacted, and there were protests...that you somehow managed to blend the two together says more about the agenda you are holding, than my comment.

Really?? Sounds like it to me:

let alone the thousands who would be impacted directly by an approval...and voiced concern.

tecoyah · Jan 25, 2012

Gill said:
It's both funny and sad that three years is not long enough to study a pipeline that will employ thousands of Americans, yet a 2,500 page, multi-billion dollar healthcare reform bill must be passed before we can find out what was in it.

Though I see little humor in this, I agree it is sobering. Due to protests and guidelines designed to protect citizens, the Pipeline course was forced to take a new route which requires the studies to be re-evaluated if not redone. The "Three Years" encompass both the original study and the ongoing newer evaluation required for approval...though I hope you uunderstand this it is worth pointing out.

The healthcare bill has nothing to do with this situation, but I understand by adding it to this discussion you feel your point has more impact.

Gill · Jan 25, 2012

tecoyah said:
Though I see little humor in this, I agree it is sobering. Due to protests and guidelines designed to protect citizens, the Pipeline course was forced to take a new route which requires the studies to be re-evaluated if not redone. The "Three Years" encompass both the original study and the ongoing newer evaluation required for approval...though I hope you uunderstand this it is worth pointing out.

The healthcare bill has nothing to do with this situation, but I understand by adding it to this discussion you feel your point has more impact.

My point was that Obama and his Democrat minions don't have any problems rushing decisions when it is in their benefit, but delaying others they don't like until after the election.

tecoyah · Jan 25, 2012

Gill said:
Really?? Sounds like it to me:

Very well, if you feel the need to misunderstand my post, I cannot change that, nor do I feel it important enough to go further into explanation. Take from it what you will, but perhaps you might delve into the actual opinion stated rather than your interpretation of the wording.

Prof. Peabody · Jan 25, 2012

Amusingly, a spokesman for the Sierra Club admitted “there is no question that [transporting] oil by rail or truck is much more dangerous than a pipeline,” but that didn’t stop the zero-growth eco-fanatics from calling in their chips with President Downgrade to kill that pipeline.

Those rail shipments are expected to “increase exponentially with increased oil production and the shortage of pipelines,” according to Justin Kringstad, director of the North Dakota Pipeline Authority. That’s going to be quite a windfall for the railroad companies, isn’t it?

As it happens, 75 percent of the oil currently shipped by rail out of North Dakota is handled by Burlington Northern Santa Fe LLC… which just happens to be a unit of Warren Buffett’s company, Berkshire Hathaway Inc. What a coincidence!

Warren Buffet Cleans Up After Keystone XL - HUMAN EVENTS

Caving to pressure from environmental groups, the Obama administration on Wednesday rejected the $7 billion-plus Keystone XL pipeline which would have carried 700,000 barrels of crude oil a day from the Alberta oil sands to refineries along the US Gulf coast.

No Keystone XL means Canadian crude will stay dirt cheap - MINING.com

What environmental groups? Even the spokesman for the Sierra Club admits that transporting oil by rail or truck is much more dangerous than by pipeline. Was it caving to environmental groups or his big business buddy Warren Buffett?

The Keystone pipeline was to carry 700,000 barrels of oil a day. A barrel of oil is 42 gallons. The average rail tank car carries about 30,000 gallons. 700,000 X 42 = 29,400,000 gallons of oil now divide that by 30,000 and you get 980 oil tank cars a day. Sounds like Berkshire Hathaway Inc is going to be in for a massive profit from the cancellation of the XL Pipeline. Did I mention even the spokesman for the Sierra Club admits that transporting oil by rail or truck is much more dangerous than by pipeline.

So let's recap, Environmentalists choose the far more dangerous way of transporting oil over the safer pipeline way (really?) and the by product of that is Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway Inc should benefit to the tune of 980 oil tank cars a day at the expense of the environment when the inevitable accidents happen. It all fits in with the agenda nicely. "Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe." Obama's now hand picked Energy Secretary Steven Chu back in 2008. Looks like they found that way there Steven.

AdamT · Jan 25, 2012

Prof. Peabody said:
What environmental groups? Even the spokesman for the Sierra Club admits that transporting oil by rail or truck is much more dangerous than by pipeline. Was it caving to environmental groups or his big business buddy Warren Buffett?

The Keystone pipeline was to carry 700,000 barrels of oil a day. A barrel of oil is 42 gallons. The average rail tank car carries about 30,000 gallons. 700,000 X 42 = 29,400,000 gallons of oil now divide that by 30,000 and you get 980 oil tank cars a day. Sounds like Berkshire Hathaway Inc is going to be in for a massive profit from the cancellation of the XL Pipeline. Did I mention even the spokesman for the Sierra Club admits that transporting oil by rail or truck is much more dangerous than by pipeline.

So let's recap, Environmentalists choose the far more dangerous way of transporting oil over the safer pipeline way (really?) and the by product of that is Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway Inc should benefit to the tune of 980 oil tank cars a day at the expense of the environment when the inevitable accidents happen. It all fits in with the agenda nicely. "Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe." Obama's now hand picked Energy Secretary Steven Chu back in 2008. Looks like they found that way there Steven.

Can you link us to the data showing that TransCanada will ship over land if they can't get the pipeline? Because everything I've seen simply suggests that they will either go with another pipeline route or just deal with slower delivery via the exsisting pipeline.

Sunbelt · Jan 25, 2012

Temporal said:
Keystone oil sands pipeline rejected - Jan. 18, 2012

The story is just starting to break, but this is great news for people living in the regions that would be affected by this. The pipeline would have moved through very ecologically sensitive areas and the public was not consulted on this.

Looks like the protesting paid off. It might still get the nod in further applications - and probably after the election - but at least for now the environment is that much safer.

Thank God. I was beginning to think that the US would suffer through an invasion of 20,000+ jobs. Lord knows this president and his lowly subjects can't survive something like that!

sharon · Jan 25, 2012

The actual number that will be at least temporarily employed for the pipeline construction is between 3500 and 4200 people.. Its only carrying less than 700,000 barrels per day from Canada to Texas... by passing Mid West refineries.

The Canadian oil companies are largely foreign owned and they won't build east and west pipelines or new refineries in Canada because they don't want to pay taxes to Canada which are higher for them than the obligations of the NAFTA agreement.

This bitumen oil will be refined in a FREE TRADE ZONE in Texas and sold for export.

Meanwhile, Canada is IMPORTING 43% of their crude from Nigeria, West Africa and Libya. Its created a problem for supplies going to Eastern Canada to the extent that a refinery in Montreal is closing.

The short version is that if there is a supply disruption to Canada, they will suffer shortaages and hardship while still piping oil south thru the United States. The foreign owned Canadian oil companies, the Texas refiners and the ports will profit, but not the US or Canada.. Canada has effectly lost control of their natural resources.

AdamT · Jan 25, 2012

sharon said:
The actual number that will be at least temporarily employed for the pipeline construction is between 3500 and 4200 people.. Its only carrying less than 700,000 barrels per day from Canada to Texas... by passing Mid West refineries.

The Canadian oil companies are largely foreign owned and they won't build east and west pipelines or new refineries in Canada because they don't want to pay taxes to Canada which are higher for them than the obligations of the NAFTA agreement.

This bitumen oil will be refined in a FREE TRADE ZONE in Texas and sold for export.

Meanwhile, Canada is IMPORTING 43% of their crude from Nigeria, West Africa and Libya. Its created a problem for supplies going to Eastern Canada to the extent that a refinery in Montreal is closing.

The short version is that if there is a supply disruption to Canada, they will suffer shortaages and hardship while still piping oil south thru the United States. The foreign owned Canadian oil companies, the Texas refiners and the ports will profit, but not the US or Canada.. Canada has effectly lost control of their natural resources.

Of course the Canadian oil companies also don't want to deal with environmentalists in Canada. Why should they when then can just run their pipeline under OUR aquifers?

sharon · Jan 25, 2012

AdamT said:
Of course the Canadian oil companies also don't want to deal with environmentalists in Canada. Why should they when then can just run their pipeline under OUR aquifers?

Well.. if you look at a pipeline map of the US.. I don't think we have been too concerned about that in the past.. but on the other hand.. bitumen has the consistency of fudge and has to be diluted to flow.. and I am informed it takes more pipeline pressure.

I don't really know what the trade-offs are...... but I am inclined to think the pipeline is a poor long term strategy... and more about a beneficial tax structure for the oil companies than a real benefit to either Canada or the US.

It won't reduce the price at the pump, increase domestic supply or create 20,000 jobs.. That is political hype.. If an oil company can't move a mere 700,000 barrels a day with a small labor force, they need to get out of the business.

Prof. Peabody · Jan 25, 2012

AdamT said:
Can you link us to the data showing that TransCanada will ship over land if they can't get the pipeline? Because everything I've seen simply suggests that they will either go with another pipeline route or just deal with slower delivery via the exsisting pipeline.

How can I link to something that hasn't happened yet?

However, either way they are working hard at achieving their goal stated by Steven Chu in 2008 "Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe."

Gasoline was $1.81 when Obama took office, it's $3.31 today.

MoSurveyor · Jan 25, 2012

Why did Congress attach XL to the payroll tax renewal anyway? Are the issues related? No. Was Congress ever actually against the payroll tax renewal? No. This was all brinkmanship on the part of the Congressional GOP to force Obama into rejecting it. They didn't like that he put off approval until next year so they whined about it to make some political hay for themselves. :roll: Is it any wonder Obama blamed Congress for his decision?

j-mac said:
The route didn't need to be changed. This was a political delaying tactic to throw red meat to Obama's base voter block...

The route needed changing until Nebraska was happy with it. If you believe Nebraska would help any Dem with a delaying tactic then you don't know a thing about Nebraska politics.

Gill said:
Wrong........most people in Nebraska are very happy with the pipeline and support it.

Nebraska governor: 'The president made a mistake' - POLITICO.com

Yes, they supported the pipeline but had serious objections to it's location. Of course, changing the route in Nebraska then changes the route in the Dakotas and now you've got 500+ miles of new routing that needs to be looked at - not something that can be done overnight (regardless of what Governor Heineman thinks). Without final approval nothing gets started so that non-sense about "conditional approval" was just so much political trash from a Republican about a Democrat. If Governor Heineman had no issues then he should have just said so in the first place and let them build XL where they wanted. If he had issues that needed addressing then he shouldn't be blaming Dems for delaying approval and making is easier for him to negotiate.

And I don't think questioning Canada's doubts about a final pipeline approval will hold water either. Everyone on both sides of the border knows how this will play out. The pipeline will be built, probably starting in 2013. TransCanadian was stupic not to consult with the States being affected before submitting their application. IMO, any delays are their own fault.

It took Nebraska three years to decide the original route (20% of the project at best) wasn't going to work for them and (almost!) work out a solution for it. Why question the fact it will take Uncle Sam another year to re-work 35% of the project?

Sunbelt · Jan 25, 2012

sharon said:
The actual number that will be at least temporarily employed for the pipeline construction is between 3500 and 4200 people...

That's not what I'm getting from the TransCanada website. Here, check it yourself:

Keystone Pipeline Project

Go ahead and share your sources, and we'll compare.

sharon · Jan 25, 2012

Sunbelt said:
That's not what I'm getting from the TransCanada website. Here, check it yourself:

Keystone Pipeline Project

Go ahead and share your sources, and we'll compare.

I know.. I have read the TransCanada claims.. Its political hype.. ask any oil man.. He'll laugh his head off..

Blue_State · Jan 25, 2012

Prof. Peabody said:
How can I link to something that hasn't happened yet?

However, either way they are working hard at achieving their goal stated by Steven Chu in 2008 "Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe."
Gasoline was $1.81 when Obama took office, it's $3.31 today.

I hate facts like those. I have said for a while now, cut gas prices down and you can keep your payroll tax holiday. You will save the average household more money in the long run.

AdamT · Jan 25, 2012

Prof. Peabody said:
How can I link to something that hasn't happened yet?

However, either way they are working hard at achieving their goal stated by Steven Chu in 2008 "Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe."

Gasoline was $1.81 when Obama took office, it's $3.31 today.

I seem to recall gasoline at over $4.00 a gallon prior to the recession ... under Bush/Cheney?

The price crashed due to the recession. Prices have recovered due to the improving economy. Don't know about you, but I'll take higher gas prices and an improving economy versus low gas prices and a putrid economy. It's that old supply<->demand thing.

BWG · Jan 25, 2012

Prof. Peabody said:
How can I link to something that hasn't happened yet?

However, either way they are working hard at achieving their goal stated by Steven Chu in 2008 "Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe."

Gasoline was $1.81 when Obama took office, it's $3.31 today.

Ahhh, you must have attended the Bachmann school of deceit...

If you go to your link and click on '4 Years' at the top of the chart, things will be put in their proper perspective.

Gasoline was $4.12 in July 2008.

Blue_State · Jan 25, 2012

Yeah, I clicked the 6 year and it showed the 4.12 as well. But then it dropped. Has anyone done the average gas price adjusted for inflation for each president?

tecoyah · Jan 25, 2012

sharon said:
Well.. if you look at a pipeline map of the US.. I don't think we have been too concerned about that in the past.. but on the other hand.. bitumen has the consistency of fudge and has to be diluted to flow.. and I am informed it takes more pipeline pressure.

I don't really know what the trade-offs are...... but I am inclined to think the pipeline is a poor long term strategy... and more about a beneficial tax structure for the oil companies than a real benefit to either Canada or the US.

It won't reduce the price at the pump, increase domestic supply or create 20,000 jobs.. That is political hype.. If an oil company can't move a mere 700,000 barrels a day with a small labor force, they need to get out of the business.

Well stated.

It is also worth pointing out that bitumen is far more corrosive than standard oil products, and thus more likely to degrade infrastructure, likely part of the reasoning for the 12 leaks last year on the existing pipeline.

sharon · Jan 25, 2012

tecoyah said:
Well stated.

It is also worth pointing out that bitumen is far more corrosive than standard oil products, and thus more likely to degrade infrastructure, likely part of the reasoning for the 12 leaks last year on the existing pipeline.

Yes, it is... but key to this deal is that Canada has lost control of its own natural resources.. The oil companies are largely own by foreigners and they are avoiding paying taxes in both Canada and the US via NAFTA.. .. and it gets better.

The oil goes to refineries in Free Trade Zones in Texas and will be refined and exported.

Canada is getting screwed... that's why they have to IMPORT 43% of their crude oil.

Sunbelt · Jan 25, 2012

sharon said:
I know.. I have read the TransCanada claims.. Its political hype.. ask any oil man.. He'll laugh his head off..

That's your source? "Any" oil man? What the hell is an "oil man"? Please be more specific, and cite some credible sources.

sharon · Jan 25, 2012

Sunbelt said:
That's your source? "Any" oil man? What the hell is an "oil man"? Please be more specific, and cite some credible sources.

Oilmen are those who have worked in the oil business for decades and understand the business.

You could reference drillers or executives with Saudi Aramco, Chevron, Hess, Marathon, TOTAL, Occiental, Dutch Shell and so forth.

Or you can listen to politicians.

Prof. Peabody · Jan 25, 2012

AdamT said:
I seem to recall gasoline at over $4.00 a gallon prior to the recession ... under Bush/Cheney?

The price crashed due to the recession. Prices have recovered due to the improving economy. Don't know about you, but I'll take higher gas prices and an improving economy versus low gas prices and a putrid economy. It's that old supply<->demand thing.

It was only over $4 a gallon from July 20th 2008 and dropped to $1.61 a gallon by the end of December 2008.

1st Q 2011 increase in GDP was .4%, 2nd Q 2011 increase in GDP was 1.3%, 3rd Q 2011 increase in GDP was 1.8%. The economy improving? Where, those numbers indicate dead in the water.

AdamT · Jan 25, 2012

Prof. Peabody said:
It was only over $4 a gallon from July 20th 2008 and dropped to $1.61 a gallon by the end of December 2008.

1st Q 2011 increase in GDP was .4%, 2nd Q 2011 increase in GDP was 1.3%, 3rd Q 2011 increase in GDP was 1.8%. The economy improving? Where, those numbers indicate dead in the water.

The GDP numbers indicate improvement. The unemployment numbers are improving. Manufacturing is improving. Consumer confidence is improving. Not quickly, but certainly.

In any case, the point is that the drop in oil prices was the result of a catastrophic economic collapse. Not really something to hang your hat on.

Prof. Peabody · Jan 25, 2012

AdamT said:
The GDP numbers indicate improvement. The unemployment numbers are improving. Manufacturing is improving. Consumer confidence is improving. Not quickly, but certainly.

In any case, the point is that the drop in oil prices was the result of a catastrophic economic collapse. Not really something to hang your hat on.

At this rate of growth we might recover in 100 years unless we boot Obama out of the White House, 13 Dems in the Senate and 19 more in the House. Folks will start to get jobs as soon as Obama and the Democrats lose theirs.

I'll be back later, I volunteer in a soup kitchen every Wednesday. We need to feed the Obama Homeless.

Keystone oil sands pipeline rejected

Gill

tecoyah

Illusionary

Gill

tecoyah

Illusionary

Prof. Peabody

Debate MMA

AdamT

Sunbelt

sharon

AdamT

sharon

Prof. Peabody

Debate MMA

MoSurveyor

Sunbelt

sharon

Blue_State

AdamT

BWG

Blue_State

tecoyah

Illusionary

sharon

Sunbelt

sharon

Prof. Peabody

Debate MMA

AdamT

Prof. Peabody

Debate MMA