Keystone XL pipeline

[bush_cheney2004]

I'm wondering if someone will find Harper and ask him about the decision, now that he's free to speak his mind unhindered by any worries about being diplomatic... I'd really love to hear his unvarnished opinions of Obama on this issue.

I'm sure he wants to take the gloves off for Obama, but one has to wonder why this bitch slap was delayed until after this new PM entered office.

So sad...the USA is leading Canada on precious environmental issues !

[On Guard for Thee]

I'm wondering if someone will find Harper and ask him about the decision, now that he's free to speak his mind unhindered by any worries about being diplomatic... I'd really love to hear his unvarnished opinions of Obama on this issue.

I doubt like hell Harper has any unvarnished versions of anything. You and yours may be waiting a long time. And rather wastefully I might add.

[On Guard for Thee]

I'm sure he wants to take the gloves off for Obama, but one has to wonder why this bitch slap was delayed until after this new PM entered office.

So sad...the USA is leading Canada on precious environmental issues !

BC bragging about Obama! Will wonders never cease?

[overthere]

So Obama has finally shuffled up to the microphone and said he won't allow the Keystone pipeline. "I'm paid way too much money by the environmental lobby to approve this, folks" he said, or should have said.

The US has built 12,000 miles of pipelines in the last five years, but somehow, this one was different. Except it wasn't any different. The real attack here is on the Canadian oil industry, not on the pipeline. The US which still uses massive quantities of coal, is allowing its environmentalists to push their agenda on Canada instead.

The US still imports millions of barrels of oil every day, and it will still wind up getting massive amounts from Canada through existing pipelines as well as through huge trainloads crossing the border every day. But hopefully this gives new impetus for us to push through pipelines to the coasts to find more honest customers. I also can't help hoping that the fracking this is as short-lived as some have estimated, and that some day, perhaps ten years from now, Americans will be lining up for gas while our oil is shipped to China.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/energy-and-resources/obama-to-reject-transcanadas-keystone-xl-pipeline-source-says/article27144973/

I hope, you hope.... but none of it is happening. XL is dead, Gateway is dead, Kinder Morgan is nearly dead and Energy East is all but buried too.

The Alberta Government just curiously announced a big new tax specifically on locomotive fuel, so that is the first round to be fired at shipping oil by rail.

There is a concerted attack on the eenrgy industry in Canada with the clear objective of shutting it down. And it is working, and working very well indeed.

What is dismaying is that our national and provincial 'leaders' are collectively sitting around with their thumbs up their assess and letting it happen, or in many cases actively abetting the blow to an economy that cannot take too many more blows.

Are we this stupid, to screw ourselves and crow about it? . The answer unfortunately is : yes, we are.

[Scott Mayers]

I'm not reading the 440 + posts here to catch up.

I'm glad Obama turned this down. Although it is claimed that this is simply about environment with utmost significance, there is also both economic and political concerns here with regards to other factors.

(1) The American Democrats have to be cautious of enabling the ease to Canadian's impulse towards more conservative politics that favor expedient benefits for monopolizing wealth in the hands of fewer and fewer people as we act with more force to trade in raw non-renewable resources. The Americans would no doubt actually favor our oil but it comes at the expense of both our own economy in Canada in the future as well as to foster an even cheapening price for American industries who would only end up exploiting American labor with more demand for cheaper and cheaper unsustainable labor.

(2) The Democrats are as much more concerned about affairs in other countries as they are to their own in contrast to the Republican ideal to simply do what it takes to always favor their own over other's interests. It was this latter attitude to which has fostered such hatred among the world against the U.S. for so long. To start paying attention to fairness in International stages, Obama is demonstrating the compassion towards others as much to appropriately represent how their own founding ideals concerned their own people. Thus the better concern for environmental factors as well.

For us, now, we need to begin using our own resources to foster our own manufacturing and other industries rather than lose them to the benefit of others. It may appear 'good' while we already have resources. But these will eventually be gone and then what do we have to support ourselves then?

[-1=e^ipi]

Only a moron would lay this on a Canadian PM who has been in office for two days.

Most of the blame goes on Harper + Obama. But Trudeau takes some of the blame. He pulled out of the ISIS mission and really only gave Keystone XL lipservice (the person controlling him, Gerald Butts, is certainly against Keystone XL). Trudeau should have instead used the mission against ISIS to get Keystone XL passed (i.e. tell Obama if he rejects Keystone XL, then Canada will pull out of Syria/Iraq). Also, what both Harper and Trudeau should have done is take a policy where Canada's future CO2 reductions depend on Keystone XL being passed. So if Keystone XL is passed, implement a CO2 tax and make reasonable emission reduction pledges; and if Keystone XL is rejected, have no CO2 tax and make zero emission pledges. But instead both Harper and Trudeau want to make Canada's climate change policy independent of what the US or any other country does.

[Argus]

(1) The American Democrats have to be cautious of enabling the ease to Canadian's impulse towards more conservative politics that favor expedient benefits for monopolizing wealth in the hands of fewer and fewer people

What are you talking about? According to a report from the parliamentary budget officer income inequality in Canada stopped rising in 2006, and has been narrowing since then - unlike in the United States where it continues to widen.

The Americans would no doubt actually favor our oil but it comes at the expense of both our own economy in Canada in the future as well as to foster an even cheapening price for American industries who would only end up exploiting American labor with more demand for cheaper and cheaper unsustainable labor.

I have no idea what this is even meant to say.

(2) The Democrats are as much more concerned about affairs in other countries as they are to their own

No, not so much. They're more concerned with the money donated by environmental groups.

[bush_cheney2004]

...No, not so much. They're more concerned with the money donated by environmental groups.

True, but all is fair, as Canadian energy development has been taking a massive amount of American and other foreign investment for decades.

[Scott Mayers]

What are you talking about? According to a report from the parliamentary budget officer income inequality in Canada stopped rising in 2006, and has been narrowing since then - unlike in the United States where it continues to widen.

I have no idea what this is even meant to say.

No, not so much. They're more concerned with the money donated by environmental groups.

I don't like the quote features here.

"What are you talking about? According to a report from the parliamentary budget officer income inequality in Canada stopped rising in 2006, and has been narrowing since then - unlike in the United States where it continues to widen."

Income 'inequality' can occur when the average becomes poorer too! But I'm skeptical of this declaration and would have to see the actual stats and how they were created to determine this and to what that could mean. Our society is in an economic downfall right now and the only 'winners' of the Conservatives is to the real estate/mortgage/construction industries taking advantage of the propped up population via temporary employment laws.

"I have no idea what this is even meant to say"

The Americans may favor our oil but it would make their already cheap oil cheaper! It would thus possibly create more secondary industries there but the net result would require laborers working in these new industries to be paid that much more cheaper and thus reduce the average person's capacity to survive at present as they are still recovering.

"No, not so much. They're more concerned with the money donated by environmental groups."

Are you proposing that the Democratic Party is simply without any standard ideals? I understood liberal parties always more interested in global and economic groups as this is a function of their ideal towards the whole. So declaring your statement is more what a conservative party would do as in "Conservatives are more concerned with the money donated by every corporations". What 'gain' do any independent environmental groups have compared to the power and dominance of corporations (who aim to capitalize financially)?

[Derek 2.0]

Of course I'm correct....welcome to the real world PM Trudeau. President Obama purposely waited to reject Keystone XL until after Trudeau entered office. Who's your Daddy, Justin ? Enjoy those CF-188s coming home soon !

Not that it would surprise me, a quid-pro you pull your forces out of Iraq after I announced additional forces going to the Middle East-quo do you have a source? Funny enough TransCanada also nixed a major hub in it's Energy East program the day before.........Will Trudeau favor Northern Gateway now?

Just wait until Trudeau pulls out of the JSF program.........I'd have thought it would take a GOP President to dole out a spanking by nixing any technology transfers for foreign aircraft.....looks like Obama is bent out of shape over Trudeau......Can't wait to see how Trudeau is going to fix our relationship damaged by Harper

[bush_cheney2004]

...Just wait until Trudeau pulls out of the JSF program.........I'd have thought it would take a GOP President to dole out a spanking by nixing any technology transfers for foreign aircraft.....looks like Obama is bent out of shape over Trudeau......Can't wait to see how Trudeau is going to fix our relationship damaged by Harper

At least Paul Martin understood how to reject missile defense publicly while still supporting it behind the political scene, the way many Canadians like their national defense sausage made. In this case, Trudeau stepped in it and received a very public rejection on Keystone from Obama with Biden and Kerry flanking his side. "...will not serve the national interests of the United States".... BOOM !

[The_Squid]

This is a blip in overall trade... and, unless someone can show otherwise, has nothing to do with our miniscule contribution to the "fight against ISIS". And if it does, so what? We shouldn't be putting lives of our armed forces at risk for a few dollars.

Is that what military personnell would like to be? Fodder for better trade relations? I don't think they would appreciate that, nor would most Canadians. It would be pretty calous to keep our troops in danger for some trade dollars so people sitting at home can make more money rather than on the actual merits of the mission.

Is that how conservatives want to use the Canadian armed forces? If it is, then thank God for PM Trudeau ousting the Harper regime.

[BC_chick]

Is that what military personnell would like to be? Fodder for better trade relations? I don't think they would appreciate that, nor would most Canadians. It would be pretty calous to keep our troops in danger for some trade dollars so people sitting at home can make more money rather than on the actual merits of the mission.

Very well said, Squid.

[jacee]

This is a blip in overall trade... and, unless someone can show otherwise, has nothing to do with our miniscule contribution to the "fight against ISIS". And if it does, so what? We shouldn't be putting lives of our armed forces at risk for a few dollars.

Is that what military personnell would like to be? Fodder for better trade relations? I don't think they would appreciate that, nor would most Canadians. It would be pretty calous to keep our troops in danger for some trade dollars so people sitting at home can make more money rather than on the actual merits of the mission.

Is that how conservatives want to use the Canadian armed forces? If it is, then thank God for PM Trudeau ousting the Harper regime.

Yes it would be despicable if soldiers are being used for business purposes, corporate fodder for access to resources or trade.

Better to create ISIS and demonize Muslims so the public gets all psyched and spends money cos it's a righteous holy war ... a humanitarian cause.

And of course Trudeau will be part of that system too.

[Topaz]

How many here, agree that Canada needs to have its own refineries?

[-1=e^ipi]

Is that what military personnell would like to be? Fodder for better trade relations? I don't think they would appreciate that

Usually I wouldn't advocate such a position, but I'm pretty indifferent on Canada fighting ISIS in Iraq/Syria due to the crazy circumstances. It was idiotic to fund the 'moderate rebels' in the first place, and the west's 'Assad is an evil dictator using chemical weapons on his population' is, for the most part, false. The west should have stayed out and let our so called allies of Saudi Arabia and Turkey deal with the issue; as they are Sunni majority countries, ISIS would not be able to invoke the Quran to get as many new recruits as they currently do (where as now they can say 'the infidels are invading muslim land' and point to verses that say it is now every muslim's duty to help ISIS). If the west didn't intervene then ISIS would continue to expand until Saudi Arabia and Turkey have no choice but to deal with them. However, 'there is no use crying over spilled milk' and the question of leaving now that Canada is already involved is different from the question of joining in the first place.

It would be far better for the crazy Islamists in Saudi Arabia and the crazy ISIS Islamists to wipe each other out rather than fight Saudi Arabia's proxy war against Iran for them. Who funds ISIS? Who funded the ideology of Wahabbism over decades, which has lead to the rise of Islamist groups from Boko Haram to Al Shabab to ISIS? Who commits continual genocide against apostates and gays? Saudi Arabia. Where does Saudi Arabia get their money? Oil. Who buys a lot of that oil? The USA. Obama wants to buy Saudi oil over Canadian oil due to his immense misunderstanding of the magnitude of climate change and then have Canada waste resources fighting Saudi Arabia's ISIS problem that they created for them? The issue of displacing Saudi oil in the global market is not independent of the fight against ISIS; so leveraging our military campaign against ISIS to reduce funds that go from the US to Islamists makes perfect sense.

[-1=e^ipi]

How many here, agree that Canada needs to have its own refineries?

What are the chances that the billions of Trudeau's infrastructure payments will go to refineries? Or the chance that some of those billions of dollars that go to Eastern Canada as transfer payments will be used to build refineries?

I say zero.

Trudeau is controlled by Gerald Butts, and look at how Trudeau really views Albertans:

http://www.torontosun.com/2012/11/22/trudeau-would-rather-have-quebecers-than-albertans-in-charge

[overthere]

What are the chances that the billions of Trudeau's infrastructure payments will go to refineries? Or the chance that some of those billions of dollars that go to Eastern Canada as transfer payments will be used to build refineries?

I say zero.

Trudeau is controlled by Gerald Butts, and look at how Trudeau really views Albertans:

http://www.torontosun.com/2012/11/22/trudeau-would-rather-have-quebecers-than-albertans-in-charge

Like father, like son.

Oh, and refineries are almost always built globally to serve local markets and needs. Crude is shipped to refinieries to be processed into whatever tis needed locally: diesel. aviation fuels, consumer products, etc.

What would be useful perhaps is to refine bitumen into crude domestically, before it is exported.

But of course this is all fantasy now. Our own governments- federal and provincial- are now intent on shutting down our energy industry. It ios not yet clear if they are unwitting in this undertaking, or just witless.

Perhaps our new Finance Minsiter will have a whisper in Trudeaus ear about how to fund grandiose social programs.

[The_Squid]

Why would Canadians think there is some sort of "right" for a pipeline to go from Canada to the USA. That's for the USA to decide.

[overthere]

Why would Canadians think there is some sort of "right" for a pipeline to go from Canada to the USA. That's for the USA to decide.

There have been oil and gas pipelines between US and Canada for many decades.

What is kind of odd here is that Keystone XL did not just carry Canadian oil, it also was intended to carry oil from the Bakken in the northern US to the Gulf.

And the prime beneficiaries of the decison to cancel KXL are countries like Iran, Mexico and espcically that haven of democracy -Venezuela- who also have the same heavy oil that was meant for KXL, going to the very same Gulf refineries. So much for US energy security.

[Guest]

There have been oil and gas pipelines between US and Canada for many decades.

What is kind of odd here is that Keystone XL did not just carry Canadian oil, it also was intended to carry oil from the Bakken in the northern US to the Gulf.

And the prime beneficiaries of the decison to cancel KXL are countries like Iran, Mexico and espcically that haven of democracy -Venezuela- who also have the same heavy oil that was meant for KXL, going to the very same Gulf refineries. So much for US energy security.

It's symbolism. The decision will probably increase greenhouse emissions, given all that oil is going anyway, by rail, but Obama could hardly head off to Paris without some kind of podium cred.

[jbg]

It's symbolism. The decision will probably increase greenhouse emissions, given all that oil is going anyway, by rail, but Obama could hardly head off to Paris without some kind of podium cred.

The agenda of the climate alarmists is a mixture of symbolism and a desire to foster a redistribution of wealth from productive taxpayers to Fourth World kleptocrats. Does anyone really think that the money will go to the impoverished citizens of these countries to mitigate the impact of climate change? They have to be kidding except the joke isn't funny. The problem is that the citizens would never vote for such a wanton transfer of resources.

[Guest]

The agenda of the climate alarmists is a mixture of symbolism and a desire to foster a redistribution of wealth from productive taxpayers to Fourth World kleptocrats. Does anyone really think that the money will go to the impoverished citizens of these countries to mitigate the impact of climate change? They have to be kidding except the joke isn't funny. The problem is that the citizens would never vote for such a wanton transfer of resources.

Well, we could always ask them to account for the money...

Hahahahahahaha Just kidding. I know we would never do that.

Edited November 8, 2015 by bcsapper

[jbg]

Well, we could always ask them to account for the money...

Hahahahahahaha Just kidding. I know we woiuld never do that.

Imagine asking rulers one step above, or below, Idi Amin to explain their fiscal policies?

[-1=e^ipi]

Fourth World kleptocrats.

Are there really any fourth world nations anymore?

The problem is that the citizens would never vote for such a wanton transfer of resources.

You underestimate the power of our neoprogressive education system and media. All the movies with scary ominous music as ice caps melt in the summer, to poor baby seals looking sad, to children being taught about how to be activists to advance the cause of 'Climate Justice', etc.