Why aren't we building more pipelines right NOW?

[bush_cheney2004]

I haven't heard any opposition from any of the eastern provinces to bringing oil in from the west. As far east as the Maritimes they seem to be all for it. Most of Canada's wack job eco freaks are in BC.

I don't care what the sob story is...east or west....the fact is this is the year 2013 and Canada still hasn't gotten it done. Talk is cheap. Or as the Texans say, "All hat, no cattle".

[sharkman]

But everyone in BC seems intent on ensuring there is no pipeline to the coast anyway, and if Alberta can get pipelines running east, and the keystone built, then I guess they can just shut off the taps to BC if they want to. After all, if BC has the right to stop pipelines then so does Alberta...

I thought this idea of pipelines to the east was a nonstarter because of the distance. It would be great if it happened, I haven't heard much of the details. No doubt the BC tree huggers would use a lot of fossil fuels to protest in those provinces! But that and Keystone would shut down China, okay in my book.

[WWWTT]

Talk is cheap.

LOL!!!

You should know!

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

I thought this idea of pipelines to the east was a nonstarter because of the distance. It would be great if it happened, I haven't heard much of the details. No doubt the BC tree huggers would use a lot of fossil fuels to protest in those provinces! But that and Keystone would shut down China, okay in my book.

Not realy as far as you think.

Saskatchewan also needs markets too!

WWWTT

[Guest American Woman]

I thought this idea of pipelines to the east was a nonstarter because of the distance. It would be great if it happened, I haven't heard much of the details. No doubt the BC tree huggers would use a lot of fossil fuels to protest in those provinces! But that and Keystone would shut down China, okay in my book.

A big holdup on the pipeline on the U.S. end was the sensitive area it would pass through in Nebraska, but it's been rerouted, and the governor of Nebraska has approved it, so I really do see it happening. Perhaps Obama has to play his cards right and not seem too eager to approve it.

[bush_cheney2004]

A big holdup on the pipeline on the U.S. end was the sensitive area it would pass through in Nebraska, but it's been rerouted, and the governor of Nebraska has approved it, so I really do see it happening. Perhaps Obama has to play his cards right and not seem too eager to approve it.

Agreed...the U.S. builds pipelines for lunch. Look at this map....why hasn't Canada built major east - west pipeline infrastructure ? Because it never made economic sense.

[waldo]

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.

Do you have a cite for that? Untreated raw bitumen would require more refining, but the upgraded oil already commands, as far as I know, a price close to that of 'normal' heavy oil. Or would were it not being dumped into the overloaded mid-american choke points.

the price gap between North Sea Brent versus West Texas Intermediate versus Western Canadian Select:

a part of that 'choke point' you speak to is also being 'fueled' by significant increases in U.S. domestic output from the Bakken Shale reserve... which, in turn, is having an impact widening the existing gap between Brent & WTI.

[waldo]

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

you just made the same claim... and refused to support it. Some, certainly not the waldo, would suggest you're trolling - yes?

while Canada ratified the treaty and proceeded to do even less than the Americans !

even less? Citation request.

for all of Canada's failings toward meeting it's Kyoto commitments, Canada did ratify it - which, in itself, was a significant effort on the part of the Liberal party in terms of working with the provinces and business. The Liberal party did put forward detailed plans of action toward meeting phased compliance... did put forward correlated budgetary measures, in kind. And then, of course, we can thank the efforts of Harper Conservatives in working against Kyoto - but not before we acknowledge the significant impact your hero Dubbya had when he snubbed his nose at Kyoto, throwing a significant curve-ball in Canada's presumptions toward working to/within an integrated North American strategy. Hence my citation request - given your country refused to ratify it's initial agreement and then your hero 'put the boots' to it even further, I'm quite intrigued to have you step-up and support your claim... waiting.

[Guest American Woman]

Didn't Canada pull out of Kyoto?

[waldo]

Didn't Canada pull out of Kyoto?

why... yes... that's right! It's the weasel move Harper Conservatives took to avoid paying penalties for not meeting commitments. And your point is?

[TimG]

Didn't Canada pull out of Kyoto?

Thankfully yes. We currently have a government that understands that emission reductions are an expensive waste of money given the technology currently available. Of course, that does not stop the eco-lunatics from screaming about it.

[Guest American Woman]

why... yes... that's right! It's the weasel move Harper Conservatives took to avoid paying penalties for not meeting commitments. And your point is?

My point is, so what if it was ratified? "Canada agreed under the Kyoto Protocol to reduce CO2 emissions to 6.0 percent below 1990 levels by 2012, but its emissions of the gases blamed for damaging Earth's fragile climate system have instead increased sharply."

So Canada ratified it, only to pull out rather than pay fines for not living up to it.

[waldo]

I thought this idea of pipelines to the east was a nonstarter because of the distance.

there is some expansion consideration in regards the Enbridge proposal... however, the main thrust of it is a direction reversal of the existing Sarnia-Montreal pipeline. TransCanada's proposal has it reversing the direction of an existing natural gas pipeline and reusing it for tarsands sludge.

No doubt the BC tree huggers would use a lot of fossil fuels to protest in those provinces! But that and Keystone would shut down China, okay in my book.

shut down China??? Clearly, you have no idea as to the 'Asian market' intent/focus for tarsands sludge.

[waldo]

My point is, so what if it was ratified? "Canada agreed under the Kyoto Protocol to reduce CO2 emissions to 6.0 percent below 1990 levels by 2012, but its emissions of the gases blamed for damaging Earth's fragile climate system have instead increased sharply."

perhaps you should re-read the quotes for proper context.

So Canada ratified it, only to pull out rather than pay fines for not living up to it.

yes, clearly... now that I've brought to your attention the fine aspect, feel free to make reference to it... and state the obvious, hey.

[waldo]

Thankfully yes. We currently have a government that understands that emission reductions are an expensive waste of money given the technology currently available. Of course, that does not stop the eco-lunatics from screaming about it.

no - there are technologies available... BigOil simply refuses to divert any of its record gazillion profits toward deployments of those technologies. You know this - but don't let that get in the way of another of your outlets to, as you say, scream "eco-lunatic"!

[Guest American Woman]

perhaps you should re-read the quotes for proper context.

The context means nothing in light of the comment you were responding to, and fyi: The International Energy Agency has just released some data that green-minded fans of shale gas should appreciate. The organisation's latest figures show that America's carbon-dioxide emissions from generating energy have fallen by 450m tonnes, more than in any other country over the past five years.

America's falling carbon-dioxide emissions

As I said, so what if Canada ratified Kyoto? It's actions - or should I say lack of - mean a lot more than a meaningless commitment. But then, some of you were able to play the 'holier than thou' card for ratifying it for awhile, so I suppose that was worth something at the time.

[Guest American Woman]

Thankfully yes. We currently have a government that understands that emission reductions are an expensive waste of money given the technology currently available. Of course, that does not stop the eco-lunatics from screaming about it.

As I see it, it's pointless as long as the whole world isn't in on it - and of course some countries are going to have a higher per capita emissions rate if they provide more industrialization compared to others in the world. Canada and the U.S. are both working on reducing their emissions, though, and that's a good thing.

[TimG]

Canada and the U.S. are both working on reducing their emissions, though, and that's a good thing.

The US is reducing its emissions because of fracked natural gas - a source of energy which the hollywood liberals are working hard to outlaw. This progress has no connection with government emission reduction policies. In Canada there has been no real change in emission levels that were not the result of normal improvements in technology. In Germany, consumers are getting fed up with the cost of 'green energy' and the end of nukes in there will mean that Germany will be abandoning its pledges soon.

Bottom line: government mandated emission reduction schemes do not work.

Edited February 17, 2013 by TimG

[waldo]

The context means nothing in light of the comment you were responding to,

the context was/is everything... but why let that stop you from stating/claiming "your own context" and reinterpreting the intent/meaning to suit your own purposes - like you do, over and over again, through a myriad of MLW threads.

and fyi: The International Energy Agency has just released some data that green-minded fans of shale gas should appreciate. The organisation's latest figures show that America's carbon-dioxide emissions from generating energy have fallen by 450m tonnes, more than in any other country over the past five years.

America's falling carbon-dioxide emissions

you've become quite the expert in a few short posts!!! Here... educate yourself; the EIA has a well-worn track record of this kind of obsfucation, one that gets regularly trumpeted throughout the mainstream: notwithstanding the basic fact of reduced American consumption, I give you, The Myth Of U.S. Carbon Dioxide Emissions Reductions

As I said, so what if Canada ratified Kyoto? It's actions - or should I say lack of - mean a lot more than a meaningless commitment. But then, some of you were able to play the 'holier than thou' card for ratifying it for awhile, so I suppose that was worth something at the time.

no - that card wasn't being played. It was simply a response to the context... the context you feel entitled to reinvent. While you're feeling emboldened over 'shale gas', you might want to do a bit of research on what's actually playing out in those shale fields; i.e., the reality of production costs versus results. But don't let that reality stop you... you... from presuming to play up the falsehood that the U.S. is proactively working to reduce emissions through policy/plan intent.

[sharkman]

A big holdup on the pipeline on the U.S. end was the sensitive area it would pass through in Nebraska, but it's been rerouted, and the governor of Nebraska has approved it, so I really do see it happening. Perhaps Obama has to play his cards right and not seem too eager to approve it.

Yes, I heard something about that. Word up here is the Obama admin wants some kind of Carbon tax in exchange for allowing the Keystone expansion, though I think that's only a rumor right now.

[waldo]

The US is reducing its emissions because of fracked natural gas - a source of energy which the hollywood liberals are working hard to outlaw. This progress has no connection with government emission reduction policies. In Canada there has been no real change in emission levels that were not the result of normal improvements in technology. In Germany, consumers are getting fed up with the cost of 'green energy' and the end of nukes in there will mean that Germany will be abandoning its pledges soon.

Bottom line: government mandated emission reduction schemes do not work.

no - you're once again... wrrrrong! "Hollywood liberals"!!!

... the EIA has a well-worn track record of this kind of obsfucation, one that gets regularly trumpeted throughout the mainstream: notwithstanding the basic fact of reduced American consumption, I give you, The Myth Of U.S. Carbon Dioxide Emissions Reductions

Edited February 17, 2013 by waldo

[sharkman]

The US is reducing its emissions because of fracked natural gas - a source of energy which the hollywood liberals are working hard to outlaw. This progress has no connection with government emission reduction policies. In Canada there has been no real change in emission levels that were not the result of normal improvements in technology. In Germany, consumers are getting fed up with the cost of 'green energy' and the end of nukes in there will mean that Germany will be abandoning its pledges soon.

Bottom line: government mandated emission reduction schemes do not work.

Yep, nothing like reality to prove the point. I think improving technologies will do what Kyoto couldn't, but the issue for me is will countries like China continue to ignore this? They get a pass from governing bodies while the US, Canada and the like get continual "studies" like the one from the IMF which says that the tar sands is destroying manufacturing. I am not making this up.

[waldo]

Yep, nothing like reality to prove the point. I think improving technologies will do what Kyoto couldn't, but the issue for me is will countries like China continue to ignore this? They get a pass from governing bodies while the US, Canada and the like get continual "studies" like the one from the IMF which says that the tar sands is destroying manufacturing. I am not making this up.

your selective reality... isn't. The only "pass" China received (along with other non-Annex 1 nations) related to the initial Kyoto - the reasons for that are well understood and well accepted by those with knowledge/insight. Perpetuating this "China pass" nonsense, perhaps, fits with your personal reality. As for whatever you think you're making up, Dutch Disease is alive and well in Canada!

[Guest American Woman]

Word up here is the Obama admin wants some kind of Carbon tax in exchange for allowing the Keystone expansion, though I think that's only a rumor right now.

There seems to be a lot of speculation about that prospect ... could be something to it.

[waldo]

There seems to be a lot of speculation about that prospect ... could be something to it.

you shouldn't ponder so much on Canada's relative positioning within your described speculation... why don't you speculate on the likelihood of Obama being able to realize a Carbon tax... in your own country, hey?