Why aren't we building more pipelines right NOW?

[Scotty]

Obama and his ambassador are threatening Canada's economy again with their whining about the oil sands and climate change. Canada's economy is losing billions and tens of billions because of being unable to ship oil at world prices. And that cost is only going to get worse as our ability to develop oil continues but our ability to ship it anywhere goes nowhere.

Do I need to point out the US has done basically NOTHING about climate change, that Clinton couldn't get even his own party to support Kyoto, and that there is not a chance in hell the current congress would agree to anything related to fighting climate change? Yet we're expected to do so or face an attack on our economy!

Canada currently ships over 2 billion barrels a day to the US. That amount would rise as we develop more oil, but without Keystone we have no ability to ship it anywhere. We can ship some of it east, once we reverse the pipelines there, but we currently only import about .69bbd so that would only use up a little over a quarter of our current production.

The current cost to our economy is $2.5 billion PER MONTH. That's $30 billion a year for the math challenged among you. And that figure is going to dramatically INCREASE if we don't find a way to expand our exports.

We need to build another pipeline to the west coast, and we need to do it as a national project which is in the national interest. Over the bodies of anyone who stands in the way, if necessary. We need to be able to remove the US from our customer list and ship ALL our oil overseas where we can get the world price for it. Doing so would mean tens of billions extra to our economy each year.

Let the Americans freeze in the dark, or get their oil from those fun loving people in Iran and Venezuela.

http://www.cbc.ca/ne...ead-report.html

http://www.theglobea...article8718582/

Edited February 16, 2013 by Scotty

[Moonbox]

We need to build a pipeline east first, to Ontario. Ontario is paying to import oil from the Mideast for higher prices than Alberta is selling it for. We should be building refineries here and importing it from Alberta rather than blowing our $$$ in Sandland.

[eyeball]

We need to build another pipeline to the west coast, and we need to do it as a national project which is in the national interest. Over the bodies of anyone who stands in the way, if necessary.

You're proposing Ottawa install a dictator in BC, employ intimidation, disappearings, torture, death squads and so on? Sweet. I bet kidnapping and murdering pays well.

[Guest American Woman]

Let the Americans freeze in the dark, or get their oil from those fun loving people in Iran and Venezuela.

Do you not realize that there is an embargo against Iran and we don't get any oil from them? And we get just as much oil from Mexico as Venezuela. We get more from from own country, however, than we do any other.

Edited February 16, 2013 by American Woman

[Scotty]

You're proposing Ottawa install a dictator in BC, employ intimidation, disappearings, torture, death squads and so on? Sweet. I bet kidnapping and murdering pays well.

I've proposed nothing of the sort. I've said this is in the national interest and Ottawa should give the go-ahead to build it. And if necessary, use RCMP and the military to stop anyone who tries to physically impede the construction.

[Scotty]

Do you not realize that there is an embargo against Iran and we don't get any oil from them? And we get just as much oil from Mexico as Venezuela. We get more from from own country, however, than we do any other.

Good. Then you can keep doing that while we sell ours to the Chinese.

[eyeball]

Well, when someone says 'Over the bodies of anyone who stands in the way' in the business of oil and national interests it usually implies some pretty heinous shit.

[roy baty]

I believe many Americans want to work and see economic growth would kill for the pipeline deal to come through and are very frustrated. Unfortunately they are not the majority down there because the majority of Americans could give a crap about their economy and decided to re-elect an incompetent president who has effectively sold out to left wing ideology. As a result, they will continue pay the price for it economically and by proxy, unfortunately so will we until we look for other trading partners and fast,

Edited February 16, 2013 by roy baty

[waldo]

Canada's economy is losing billions and tens of billions because of being unable to ship oil at world prices.

cry me a bitumen bubble!!!

as raw bitumen 'sludge' from the tarsands, the price will always be significantly lower than the benchmarks. You're over-emphasizing the relevance of KXL to the U.S. - it's always been principally intended to allow an Asian market outlet. Why, some wags, certainly not the waldo, have speculated that the U.S. has been 'dragging' on a KXL decision simply because it doesn't need KXL (at this time). given it's relatively recent newfound 'independence' tied to its own increased domestic output.

[Guest American Woman]

Good. Then you can keep doing that while we sell ours to the Chinese.

I'm sure we will keep doing what we've been doing. But note that you're the one going off on a rant bout it. You're all over the place, too, criticizing the U.S. for hurting Canada - as you say you need to rid yourselves of the U.S. as a customer. If the Keystone Pipeline is built, you will definitely not be ridding yourselves of the U.S., so I would think you would be against this project.

[waldo]

I believe most Americans who want to work and see economic growth would kill for the pipeline deal to come through. Unfortnately they are not the majority because the majority re-elected an incompetent president who has sold out to the left wing loons and will continue pay the price for it economically and by proxy, so will we.

no - KXL pipeline has no significant long-term job attachments... construction phase jobs have been estimated to be ~3-5 thousand (short term jobs).

[Argus]

del

Edited February 16, 2013 by Argus

[Argus]

no - KXL pipeline has no significant long-term job attachments... construction phase jobs have been estimated to be ~3-5 thousand (short term jobs).

Nobody will be processing that oil I guess. Nor is there any national security interest in them getting their oil down a secure pipeline rather than on tankers coming from hostile foreign governments.

[waldo]

Nobody will be processing that oil I guess. Nor is there any national security interest in them getting their oil down a secure pipeline rather than on tankers coming from hostile foreign governments.

no - again, the tarsands sludge is not, principally, geared for the U.S. domestic market:

What pipeline advocates - including big-oil lobbyists and House Republicans who have tried to force an early, favorable decision - fail to mention is that much of the tar sands oil that would be refined on the Gulf Coast is destined for export. Six companies have already contracted for three-quarters of the oil. Five are foreign, and the business model of the one American company - Valero - is geared toward export.

[Vancouver King]

Americans are less and less interested despite Alberta handing them virtually all the associated refining jobs. There is an administration in place willing to offer more than lip service in reducing green house gases. Alternative energy production is Obama's priority, consider that fully 25% of Texas' electricity is now generated by harnassing the wind.

With 70% of British Columbians opposed to pipelining this sludge to the coast, Harper will have to ram through this project - putting at risk 30+ seats and his majority. The man in the pocket of big oil has a problem.

[bush_cheney2004]

Obama and his ambassador are threatening Canada's economy again with their whining about the oil sands and climate change. Canada's economy is losing billions and tens of billions because of being unable to ship oil at world prices. And that cost is only going to get worse as our ability to develop oil continues but our ability to ship it anywhere goes nowhere.

Oh goody...a fresh anti-American rant...just in time for Saturday brunch. Canada's oil production has always been too dependent on American capital, technology, distribution, and market. And it's not Canada's oil....it's Alberta's oil.

Do I need to point out the US has done basically NOTHING about climate change, that Clinton couldn't get even his own party to support Kyoto, and that there is not a chance in hell the current congress would agree to anything related to fighting climate change? Yet we're expected to do so or face an attack on our economy!

Why did Canada ratify Kyoto only to do even less than the U.S., which did not ratify the treaty ?

Canada currently ships over 2 billion barrels a day to the US. That amount would rise as we develop more oil, but without Keystone we have no ability to ship it anywhere. We can ship some of it east, once we reverse the pipelines there, but we currently only import about .69bbd so that would only use up a little over a quarter of our current production.

2 BILLION ? No way....you must mean 2 MILLION. Why didn't Canada build the pipelines east and west years ago ?

The current cost to our economy is $2.5 billion PER MONTH. That's $30 billion a year for the math challenged among you. And that figure is going to dramatically INCREASE if we don't find a way to expand our exports.

Oil production would still be a small part of Canada's mixed economy.

We need to build another pipeline to the west coast, and we need to do it as a national project which is in the national interest. Over the bodies of anyone who stands in the way, if necessary. We need to be able to remove the US from our customer list and ship ALL our oil overseas where we can get the world price for it. Doing so would mean tens of billions extra to our economy each year.

Better pay for a bigger navy too, and stop being so cheap / relying on the U.S. Navy to get crude carriers to terminals around the world.

Let the Americans freeze in the dark, or get their oil from those fun loving people in Iran and Venezuela.

The Americans have always produced much more oil than Canada, and always will. More coal and gas too.

[Canuckistani]

I've proposed nothing of the sort. I've said this is in the national interest and Ottawa should give the go-ahead to build it. And if necessary, use RCMP and the military to stop anyone who tries to physically impede the construction.

Good luck with that.

Come of with a plan that has reasonable assurances of safety, and makes the people profiting from the pipeline carry the total cost of any cleanup, and I'm all for it. But Enbridge is reisisting double walling the pipeline, which would hugely reduce the risk, and won't shift the terminus to Prince Rupert which would hugely reduce the risk to the marine environment. Also the Feds need to change the legislation so Enbridge is completely liable for any cleanup costs, which could be in the billions. Enbridge plans to use a limited liabitlity company to own the pipeline - because they don't want to hold the liability. They'd have to put up a 50 billion bond to give some assurance that the money is there in case of a spill. Costs for the Keystone spill are currently at 40 billion.

Do all that, then we can talk.

[sharkman]

Good luck with that.

Come of with a plan that has reasonable assurances of safety, and makes the people profiting from the pipeline carry the total cost of any cleanup, and I'm all for it. But Enbridge is reisisting double walling the pipeline, which would hugely reduce the risk, and won't shift the terminus to Prince Rupert which would hugely reduce the risk to the marine environment. Also the Feds need to change the legislation so Enbridge is completely liable for any cleanup costs, which could be in the billions. Enbridge plans to use a limited liabitlity company to own the pipeline - because they don't want to hold the liability. They'd have to put up a 50 billion bond to give some assurance that the money is there in case of a spill. Costs for the Keystone spill are currently at 40 billion.

Do all that, then we can talk.

What do you mean by "The Keystone Spill". Is one being planned or are you just sure it'll happen. Anyway, piping the oil is much safer than bringing it around the globe on a tanker. As Argus and others have said, it's also much better to be not handing billions of dollars to nations that think the US is the great Satan and turn a blind eye to the muslim extremists that love to blow people up.

[bush_cheney2004]

.... As Argus and others have said, it's also much better to be not handing billions of dollars to nations that think the US is the great Satan and turn a blind eye to the muslim extremists that love to blow people up.

The U.S. imports crude oil and distillates from many nations....and imports are way down. The U.S. also exports petroleum products to many nations, including Canada.

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_ep00_im0_mbbl_m.htm

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=MTTIMUS1&f=M

[Canuckistani]

What do you mean by "The Keystone Spill". Is one being planned or are you just sure it'll happen. Anyway, piping the oil is much safer than bringing it around the globe on a tanker. As Argus and others have said, it's also much better to be not handing billions of dollars to nations that think the US is the great Satan and turn a blind eye to the muslim extremists that love to blow people up.

Sorry, Kalamazoo.

Piping oil is as safe as you make it. Double wall the pipe and it's much safer. Your argument doesn't address the issues, just creates a strawman. Also, your argument contradicts itself. In order for the Northern Gateway to proceed, they need to ship that oil thru some very dangerous passagges by tanker, which you just said wasnt' very safe compared to the pipeline. No tankers, no pipeline. Currently there just isn't the infrastructure in place to deal with a major marine spill (nor one on land), and damages are limited to 40 million, a drop in the bucket. These are the sorts of concerns that need to be adressed. It's not ship oil at any cost, but at minimized risk if the cost/benefit is worth it.

[sharkman]

Sorry, Kalamazoo.

Piping oil is as safe as you make it. Double wall the pipe and it's much safer. Your argument doesn't address the issues, just creates a strawman. Also, your argument contradicts itself. In order for the Northern Gateway to proceed, they need to ship that oil thru some very dangerous passagges by tanker, which you just said wasnt' very safe compared to the pipeline. No tankers, no pipeline. Currently there just isn't the infrastructure in place to deal with a major marine spill (nor one on land), and damages are limited to 40 million, a drop in the bucket. These are the sorts of concerns that need to be adressed. It's not ship oil at any cost, but at minimized risk if the cost/benefit is worth it.

You misunderstood me, I am talking about the Keystone pipeline expansion, not the northern gateway or any other. That's why I asked you about your use of the phrase "The keystone spill". I looked at the costs for the Kalamazoo spill and this link here says as of July 2012, the cost was 765 million, not 40 billion. Where did you get 40 billion from?

At any rate, so if the Keystone expansion is built, then bitumen could be piped directly to the US. The US would then process it, and have oil for its domestic needs. No tanker ships involved.

Edited February 16, 2013 by sharkman

[bush_cheney2004]

....At any rate, so if the Keystone expansion is built, then bitumen could be piped directly to the US. The US would then process it, and have oil for its domestic needs. No tanker ships involved.

The U.S. does not need additional supply for domestic consumption, which is actually going down in the case of gasoline. The U.S. does have excess refining capacity that exists now and would take years to build in Canada, hence eventual exports by tanker.

[sharkman]

Are you suggesting that the US domestic consumption does not partly come from imports from the Middle east and South America? Or what are you saying, they don't want Canadian bitumen?

[WWWTT]

We need to build a pipeline east first, to Ontario. Ontario is paying to import oil from the Mideast for higher prices than Alberta is selling it for. We should be building refineries here and importing it from Alberta rather than blowing our $$$ in Sandland.

Bang on Moonbox!!!

We can finally agree on something and this is a fantastic topic to do so!

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

The U.S. does have excess refining capacity that exists now and would take years to build in Canada, hence eventual exports by tanker.

Therefore,be it resolved that a pipeline be built to Eastern Canada,in addition,further oil refining capacity be built in Ontario!

Now we're getting somewhere!

WWWTT