Keystone XL pipeline

Shady · February 5, 2014

So then your "government jobs program" statement was false. Thanks.

Government jobs program in that it needs government approval. Come'on man.

overthere · February 6, 2014

Government jobs program in that it needs government approval. Come'on man.

not just approval.

Lots of money, lots of staff. A communications staff to explain how and why it all went wrong.

Army Guy · February 10, 2014

With Canada in need of Jobs, i would have thought that most Canadians would be happy....

jacee · February 11, 2014

With Canada in need of Jobs, i would have thought that most Canadians would be happy....

Highly doubtful that Canadians will be employed building a pipeline thru the US.

Army Guy · February 11, 2014

No but they have to build it to the border, and could be a contender to assist in building in the US....there is still other pipe lines that are being considered the one to BC, and the one into the maritimes.....

overthere · February 11, 2014

Harper is lining up plan B in the event Keystone is not approved by Obama. He has said recently that if Obama does not approve it, the next President will because it makes economic sense. I seem to recall that NAFTA has language that allowed USA preferential treatment for access to Canadian energy in return for Canadian access to US markets. I wonder what happened to that?

Ambassador Gary Doer has also said recently that if the pipeline isn't built, the same oil will go to the same places in the US via rail.

Edited February 11, 2014 by overthere

waldo · February 11, 2014

Harper is lining up plan B in the event Keystone is not approved by Obama. He has said recently that if Obama does not approve it, the next President will because it makes economic sense.

economic sense... for who/what countries?

overthere · February 11, 2014

economic sense... for who/what countries?

Canada. Under NAFTA, the tradeoff is continental access to energy security(US benefit) vs access to markets(Canadian Benefit).

You are not required to have equal benefit to both countries in every economic sector or for every project.

waldo · February 11, 2014

Canada. Under NAFTA, the tradeoff is continental access to energy security(US benefit) vs access to markets(Canadian Benefit).

You are not required to have equal benefit to both countries in every economic sector or for every project.

so... not economically sensible for the U.S. then. You specifically said economic sense. The energy security blanket talking point has run its course, both from the standpoint of just where from and what amounts the U.S. was actually importing, and more recently in terms of the U.S.' own self-sufficiency. But don't forget the economics for China in terms of its direct investments versus anticipated export returns (via Gulf Coast shipping).

Shady · February 12, 2014

The oil's going to be shipped down to the gulf either way. Greenies are gonna have to decide whether it'll be by pipeline, or rail or truck. In which case, rail or truck will result in 40% more emissions than by pipeline. But they care about the environment!

waldo · February 13, 2014

In which case, rail or truck will result in 40% more emissions than by pipeline.

purely for S&G's... cite your source for that claim.

eyeball · February 13, 2014

Some of us also care about the economy because of the way it relies on the natural capital of the ecosystems that oil will be transported through. Transporting it west in my direction for example will move oil through 1000 fish bearing water-courses on its way to market. There is not a single mega-project that has taken place in and around salmonid bearing watersheds in my province that has not had an adverse impact on these often irreplaceable aquatic ecosystems. There is also the natural capital of the marine ecosystems oil will pass through once it reaches the coast to consider.

Another key feature of moving oil east is that more environmentally responsible markets exist in that direction. While it may be inevitable that the oil is going to reach market doesn't preclude the fact there will or should be a demand that it be used and handled in the most environmentally, economically and ethically responsible manner possible. There is simply less at stake moving it east or south than west.

waldo · February 14, 2014

In which case, rail or truck will result in 40% more emissions than by pipeline.

purely for S&G's... cite your source for that claim.

*** bump ***

.

sharkman · February 14, 2014

The oil's going to be shipped down to the gulf either way. Greenies are gonna have to decide whether it'll be by pipeline, or rail or truck. In which case, rail or truck will result in 40% more emissions than by pipeline. But they care about the environment!

And that is the bottom line. They need to wake up to the reality that their only choice is which mode of transportation.

overthere · February 14, 2014

And that is the bottom line. They need to wake up to the reality that their only choice is which mode of transportation.

Will Gateway end up morphing into thousands of rail cars and supertankers in Prince Rupert or Vancouver?.

waldo · February 14, 2014

And that is the bottom line. They need to wake up to the reality that their only choice is which mode of transportation.

you're agreeing with the guy who refuses to cite/support his claim? Supposedly, if you accept the BigOil claim concerning "tight margins", some analysis suggests rail transport will most certainly have an impact on those margins... hence development; i.e., the scale of development.

Shady · February 14, 2014

you're agreeing with the guy who refuses to cite/support his claim? Supposedly, if you accept the BigOil claim concerning "tight margins", some analysis suggests rail transport will most certainly have an impact on those margins... hence development; i.e., the scale of development.

I'll cite it. When I do, does that mean you'll change your opinion about the pipeline?

waldo · February 14, 2014

I'll cite it. When I do, does that mean you'll change your opinion about the pipeline?

ooohhhh! The suspense is too much... please, please Shady! Don't tease.

WestCoastRunner · February 15, 2014

Will Gateway end up morphing into thousands of rail cars and supertankers in Prince Rupert or Vancouver?.

If it's approved, (decision is expected in July), it sounds like a refinery may be built in Kitimat, then the oil will be sent out in tankers through our pristine waters. A sad day for British Columbia.

WestCoastRunner · February 15, 2014

Hopefully, demand in the u.s. for oil from Canada will continue to drop and China's economy will continue to go sideways, then we won't have as much oil being transported through our beautiful west coast.

bush_cheney2004 · February 15, 2014

Since British Columbia enjoys the benefits of bitumen and petroleum distillates, it can also share in some of the risks.

Shady · February 15, 2014

Hopefully, demand in the u.s. for oil from Canada will continue to drop and China's economy will continue to go sideways, then we won't have as much oil being transported through our beautiful west coast.

If that happens our economy and standard of living will also drop and go sideways. I'm crossing my fingers!!!! Lol.

eyeball · February 15, 2014

Since British Columbia enjoys the benefits of bitumen and petroleum distillates, it can also share in some of the risks.

Canada and the world better come enjoy the benefits that BC has to share, like wild salmon for example, while they still exist.

sharkman · February 15, 2014

I don't think we can feed the world with wild salmon, but there are many other benefits too.

bush_cheney2004 · February 15, 2014

Canada and the world better come enjoy the benefits that BC has to share, like wild salmon for example, while they still exist.

Meh...if BC cared so much about their "pristine environment", then the commercial fisherpersons wouldn't have already effed things up so badly and raw sewage wouldn't still be discharged into the ocean.