Keystone XL pipeline

[dre]

From the Star today - but of course, Obama continues to deny that politics are at play. The guy is beholden to his donors - instead of his country.

Link: http://www.thestar.com/business/economy/2014/04/18/us_delays_decision_on_keystone_xl_pipeline.html

The problem is the US doesnt really need this pipeline. They are better of investing in developing their own shale formations and thats exactly what they are doing. They arent going to need Canadian oil for much longer. And Canada would be better off building a pipeline to the east where our refining capacity is, because we currently IMPORT most of our oil from countries like Venezuela.

[Keepitsimple]

The problem is the US doesnt really need this pipeline. They are better of investing in developing their own shale formations and thats exactly what they are doing. They arent going to need Canadian oil for much longer. And Canada would be better off building a pipeline to the east where our refining capacity is, because we currently IMPORT most of our oil from countries like Venezuela.

The eco-nuts want to keep oil in the ground - period.....and they would be apoplectic about refineries. Refineries would have trucks and railcars shooting off in all directions carrying the resulting products of gas, diesel, jet fuel, heavy oil, lubricants, etc. to markets all over North America. Nothing - absolutely nothing will satisfy the eco-nuts until the production of Oil and Gas stops completely.

These eco-nuts are doing next to nothing to shut down the coal industry in the US. The big-money US enviro-funds are using Canada as an example - because we're small enough to damage. Canadians should be outraged at the hypocrasy of it all.

Edited April 21, 2014 by Keepitsimple

[Smallc]

The US is going to be energy independent in a North American context. This pipeline will do them good, and it's one of many pipelines that Canada needs and is slated to build (Line 9, Keystone XL, Energy East, Transmountain, an possibly Northern Gateway).

[Topaz]

Winners and losers...who/what are the losers in this? Environment?

[overthere]

Winners and losers...who/what are the losers in this? Environment?

consumers of oil and oil products, which is everybody.

The oil will now go to market on the much less safe and more expensive rail systems.

That's progress.

[Keepitsimple]

Winners and losers...who/what are the losers in this? Environment?

Winners are the Construction industry with thousands of jobs in the US. Obama showed his arrogance by actually chuckling when saying that Keystone would only generate 40 fulltime jobs. He doesn't count the thousands of long-term construction jobs that result. Construction - by its nature - is not fulltime - it's project by project. His arrogance in dismissing construction jobs when US workers need jobs was outrageous.

Winners are the environment - oil will not be sent to the US by rail or truck - but by a much safer pipeline. The more oil we can ship to the US, the quicker they can wean themselves off of coal.......and eventually, gas can start to replace oil.

Winners are Canadians who are depent on Oil and Gas as a main driver of the economy that generates taxes and pays for social programs - Social Programs that invariably help the poorest of Canadians.

Winners are consumers - if Oil delivery is choked through transport, supply goes down and prices go up. That affects the poorest in society the most.

Where do you see the losers?

[Topaz]

Winners are the Construction industry with thousands of jobs in the US. Obama showed his arrogance by actually chuckling when saying that Keystone would only generate 40 fulltime jobs. He doesn't count the thousands of long-term construction jobs that result. Construction - by its nature - is not fulltime - it's project by project. His arrogance in dismissing construction jobs when US workers need jobs was outrageous.

Winners are the environment - oil will not be sent to the US by rail or truck - but by a much safer pipeline. The more oil we can ship to the US, the quicker they can wean themselves off of coal.......and eventually, gas can start to replace oil.

Winners are Canadians who are depent on Oil and Gas as a main driver of the economy that generates taxes and pays for social programs - Social Programs that invariably help the poorest of Canadians.

Winners are consumers - if Oil delivery is choked through transport, supply goes down and prices go up. That affects the poorest in society the most.

Where do you see the losers?

I see the real winners are the investors and the real losers is where ever the pipeline LEAKS in the future.

[Keepitsimple]

I see the real winners are the investors and the real losers is where ever the pipeline LEAKS in the future.

Pretty narrow vision.

Edited April 23, 2014 by Keepitsimple

[overthere]

No surprise here....Canadians can wait some more on the Keystone XL border pipeline decision. American politics is more important than some silly pipeline ! A Republican president would have approved it long ago.

The U.S. State Department announced on Friday it is extending the government comment period on the Keystone XL pipeline, a move that likely postpones a final decision on the controversial project until after the Nov. 4 mid-term elections.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/u-s-to-delay-keystone-xl-decision-1.2615062

The decision has been made, obviously.

And the decison is "no".

Obama has no political gain by saying this publicly, but clearly it is dead. And it has nothing to do with the physical environment, since his own State Dept has correctly confirmed the oilsands output will go to market with or without Keystone .

He cannot afford the potential political fallout from an approval, with mid term elections threatening Democratic control of the Senate..

The premise for this delay is laughable: that the federal govt has to wait for Nebraska to work through legal challenges to the pipeline route through that state. The Federal decision relates to the project, not the route. They have no influence on the deliberations of states, and can approve or deny the pipeline crossing the international border, with or without any decisions made in Nebraska or any state.

Stick a fork in it, its done.

I noticed a little article in todays paper in which Enbridge announces it is proceeding with a $7 billion 'overhaul' of its aging Line 3 between Alberta and Wisconsin, and an expansion of the Clipper pipeline which also runs AB to Wisconsin. Both projects should be complete in about 2017.

End run on an existing right -of way?

eta: the main oil terminus in AB is in a town called Hardisty, southeast of Edmonton. Many major pipelines begin or end there. There has been a lot of construction there, including current major crude-by-rail handling facilities.

Edited April 23, 2014 by overthere

[Argus]

The decision has been made, obviously.

And the decison is "no".

Obama has no political gain by saying this publicly, but clearly it is dead.

Actually, I believe the decision is yes, but he doesn't want to upset his environmentalist lobby, especially before the mid-terms.

There really isn't any legitimate grounds for the US government to use to turn it down. It's only a pipeline. To turn that down on the basis that you're afraid it might leak somewhere, sometime, is preposterous given the hundreds of thousands of miles of existing pipeline already criss-crossing the United States.

America depends on a network of more than 185,000 miles of liquid petroleum pipelines, nearly 320,000 miles of gas transmission pipelines, and more than 2 million miles of gas distribution pipelines to safely and efficiently move energy and raw materials to fuel our nation's economic engine

http://www.pipeline101.com/why-do-we-need-pipelines

[Shady]

Actually, I believe the decision is yes,

I hope you're right.

[bush_cheney2004]

The U.S. should extract concessions for the previously rejected ballistic missile defense (BMD) project to approve the KXL pipeline:

Nearly 10 years ago, Canada formally rejected a U.S. offer to jointly develop the technology and procedures to defend North America from attacks by long-range missiles – a so-called Ballistic Missile Defence or BMD. In February 2005, then Foreign Minister Pierre Pettigrew called Canada’s decision not to participate “final” and “based on policy principles … not sheer emotion.” This was a classic example of the official announcement optimistically attempting to rewrite history as, contrary to Mr. Pettigrew’s assertion, Canada’s BMD decision had a rich emotional content.

http://www.macdonaldlaurier.ca/crowley-and-wilner-in-frontline-ballistic-missile-defence-an-idea-whose-time-has-come/

...Many Canadians admire the current occupant of the White House and taking a seat at the BMD table might go a long way towards mending political fences at a time when Ottawa is seeking political capital to use on other issues such as the Keystone XL pipeline. Now may be an opportune time for the Canadian government to reopen the file and join the ranks of virtually every other important U.S. ally, from Britain to Japan, and support the development of BMD

[waldo]

There really isn't any legitimate grounds for the US government to use to turn it down. It's only a pipeline. To turn that down on the basis that you're afraid it might leak somewhere, sometime, is preposterous given the hundreds of thousands of miles of existing pipeline already criss-crossing the United States.

pipeline leaks aren't driving a/the decision. As clearly outlined by Obama, the principal decision criteria reflect upon the possibility of increased emissions/climate change impacts... and is the pipeline in the best interests of the U.S.. Presuming to ignore emissions/climate change concerns relative to unfettered tarsands development... because "they'll happen with or without the KXL pipeline", is a non-starter. In the other criteria regard, quite obviously, per TransCanada's own submission documents, there will be a negative impact (i.e. increased gas prices to the U.S. 'midwest' market) when the existing under-supply is eliminated should KXL proceed... notwithstanding the majority of KXL sludge is not intended for the U.S. domestic market; rather, it is intended for Asian markets. In that regard... best interests of the U.S.???

the current/latest delay is (also) intended to provide an appropriate response period for all concerned U.S. government departments to properly submit input for consideration/review... something that the latest botched State Department effort failed to provide for.

[Argus]

pipeline leaks aren't driving a/the decision. As clearly outlined by Obama, the principal decision criteria reflect upon the possibility of increased emissions/climate change impacts..

His own government has already said no. Besides, if he tries that then he abrogates the free trade agreement the US fought so hard for, the one that guaranteed them access to our oil. And it also looks more than a trifle hypocritical given how much power the US still generates with coal fired plants.

Presuming to ignore emissions/climate change concerns relative to unfettered tarsands development... because "they'll happen with or without the KXL pipeline", is a non-starter.

Really? Why? What possible justification would a US president have for doing away with an agreement his government fought so determinedly for just to make a pointless self-righteous stand that will have no real-world effect on the environment?

notwithstanding the majority of KXL sludge is not intended for the U.S. domestic market; rather, it is intended for Asian markets. In that regard... best interests of the U.S.???

Yeah it is, because there's a lot of doubt about how long the oil from fracking will last, a lot of suspicion now that predictions were overblown, and the US wants oil self-sufficiency, or at least, to not have to importa anything from potentially hostile countries.

the current/latest delay is (also) intended to provide an appropriate response period for all concerned U.S. government departments to properly submit input for consideration/review... something that the latest botched State Department effort failed to provide for.

It's designed to push the decision past the next elections, nothing more.

[waldo]

His own government has already said no. Besides, if he tries that then he abrogates the free trade agreement the US fought so hard for, the one that guaranteed them access to our oil. And it also looks more than a trifle hypocritical given how much power the US still generates with coal fired plants.

if you're referring to the latest U.S. State Department report, it's simply the latest... and it's also tainted as the prior were. Past MLW threads have spoken to identified/acknowledged problems with these prior U.S. State Department reports. Again, in regards this latest report, not all U.S. government departments/agencies were afforded a proper avenue to present their input. Over this latest delay, that will now occur with, most notably, the U.S. EPA providing a more comprehensive targeted input. Notwithstanding, once again, the "independent" consultant company that put together this latest report has long-standing ties/working associations with TransCanada.

whatever presumed hypocritical attachment you may want to tag the U.S./Obama admin with, the Obama admin has moved to deal with new coal plant emissions and has attempted the same in regards existing coal plants... see Republican tirades intending to abolish the U.S. EPA!

.

Really? Why? What possible justification would a US president have for doing away with an agreement his government fought so determinedly for just to make a pointless self-righteous stand that will have no real-world effect on the environment?

I assume you're again referencing the FTA. In all the time I've been following the back-&-forth on KXL, it's very infrequent to come across suggestion that FTA is a consideration. If you've access to something signficant in that regard, it would be interesting to read/evaluate. The 'real world' effect isn't one imagined/fabricated. We've had past MLW thread discussions that speak to exactly what full-bore, flat-out, unfettered, unsustainable development of the tarsands means... both in terms of direct and indirect emissions, as well as working to perpetuate a global dependency on fossil-fuels... working against initiatives/opportunities to emphasize renewable development/research.

.

Yeah it is, because there's a lot of doubt about how long the oil from fracking will last, a lot of suspicion now that predictions were overblown, and the US wants oil self-sufficiency, or at least, to not have to importa anything from potentially hostile countries.

in past MLW thread discussion, I've actually brought forward studies that speak to overblown predictions, to quickly diminishing returns from active fracking wells. For every one of those, industry counters. In terms of what's reality, I'd like to "believe" those studies... yet, when I read legitimate articles that speak to suggestion that the U.S. has designs on becoming a net exporter of it's new-found fracking bonanza, who knows. In any case, the U.S. Gulf Coast refineries are already taking in Mexico's tar-sludge... the tarsands would simply be a competitor to Mexico in terms of any U.S. domestic targeting of the refinery output. My more pointed reference to questioning an overall benefit to the U.S. is the prevailing intent to market KXL to Asia.

.

It's designed to push the decision past the next elections, nothing more.

yes, there's that... but there's more. The latest U.S. State Department report has taken some serious critical hits. I mentioned the process lacked full/complete participatory input from some U.S. departments/agencies.

[Argus]

if you're referring to the latest U.S. State Department report, it's simply the latest... and it's also tainted as the prior were.

I have a feeling that any report which doesn't condemn Keystone will be determined to be tainted in some way. The environmentalists seem to want an assessment of a large scale oil infrastructure project by people who have never had any connection, experience or acquaintance with the oil and gas industry. Good look with that! Maybe the FDA can start using laymen to assess the viability of new drugs next.

whatever presumed hypocritical attachment you may want to tag the U.S./Obama admin with, the Obama admin has moved to deal with new coal plant emissions and has attempted the same in regards existing coal plants... see Republican tirades intending to abolish the U.S. EPA!

And this has had what effect, thus far?

I assume you're again referencing the FTA. In all the time I've been following the back-&-forth on KXL, it's very infrequent to come across suggestion that FTA is a consideration.

US access to Canadian oil was a major sticking point, a key demand of the US side in the original US/Canada free trade agreement. NAFTA bans any duty or tax on oil exports between NAFTA members, and requires that Canada give the US access to our oil and gas. Under the agreement, the percentage of Canadian oil and gas going to the US cannot be allowed to fall below the percentage of supply then in effect. I think any international court would find US interference in imports sufficient to abrogate that agreement.

The 'real world' effect isn't one imagined/fabricated. We've had past MLW thread discussions that speak to exactly what full-bore, flat-out, unfettered, unsustainable development of the tarsands means... both in terms of direct and indirect emissions, as well as working to perpetuate a global dependency on fossil-fuels... working against initiatives/opportunities to emphasize renewable development/research.

I'm not going to argue environmental effects of the oil sands. What I've said is that Keystone is not going to stop it, or even slow it down much. Oil shipments by rail are growing by the day with orders placed with rail car manufacturers for tens of thousands more cars, the pipeline east will be ready in a couple of years, and at the very least, the Kinder Morgan expansion to the west coast will be in place not long after that.

And by the way, funny how the US and its state governments aren't doing anything much to stop fracking, despite all the concern among the environmental lobby about the poisoning of the watershed and possible earthquakes.

[waldo]

I have a feeling that any report which doesn't condemn Keystone will be determined to be tainted in some way. The environmentalists seem to want an assessment of a large scale oil infrastructure project by people who have never had any connection, experience or acquaintance with the oil and gas industry. Good look with that! Maybe the FDA can start using laymen to assess the viability of new drugs next.

yabut, there has to be a perception of fairness, of no bias, of an independent review. Why do think the initial review had a 'do-over'? In that case, the company performing the review/analysis and creating the report was actually selected by TransCanada... it also had past working involvement with TransCanada. As I alluded to in the most recent case, the supposed "arms-length" distance of the U.S. State Department chose the consultant company to create the latest report... the very company that TransCanada recommended! Imagine. There's no shortage of qualified, truly independent persons that could be engaged to create a report... if nothing else, a part of the process could include persons accepted from 'both sides' to put together names of persons/companies to choose from, with a final choice acceptable to 'both sides'. What a concept!

.

And this has had what effect, thus far?

you brought up the issue of coal with your hypocritical attachment to Obama. As I stated, the Obama admin has tried to bring forward emission control/reduction measures for both new and existing coal plants... measures are in and approved for new plants (but, of course, no new plants... outright new plants, are being constructed). Republicans are blocking measures affecting existing plants... and have threatened/attempted to shut down the U.S. EPA over it. The point being, your hypocritical attachment you threw at Obama (at least in regards your coal example) is somewhat suspect. If you're highlighting a lack of significant results in the U.S. Obama driven, coal related emission reductions... is your answer to "ramp up additional emissions via KXL"?

in any case, U.S. coal related emissions did go down - big time... of course, it was due to the shift to gas/oil related to fracking. But don't worry, BigCoal responded by shipping off record exports of coal, particularly to some European countries. Also, in the U.S., BigCoal "wants back in", and has undertaken signficant lobbying measures to work towards that end.

.

US access to Canadian oil was a major sticking point, a key demand of the US side in the original US/Canada free trade agreement. NAFTA bans any duty or tax on oil exports between NAFTA members, and requires that Canada give the US access to our oil and gas. Under the agreement, the percentage of Canadian oil and gas going to the US cannot be allowed to fall below the percentage of supply then in effect. I think any international court would find US interference in imports sufficient to abrogate that agreement.

as I said, I've rarely encountered any discussion around KXL that includes your NAFTA angle. I'd think the fact all current Canadian exports flood the U.S. wouldn't provide grounds... any treaty abrogation grounds... to suggest 'denied access'.

.

I'm not going to argue environmental effects of the oil sands. What I've said is that Keystone is not going to stop it, or even slow it down much. Oil shipments by rail are growing by the day with orders placed with rail car manufacturers for tens of thousands more cars, the pipeline east will be ready in a couple of years, and at the very least, the Kinder Morgan expansion to the west coast will be in place not long after that.

nice one! You're not prepared to discuss the effects... but you're certainly prepared to state there are none! Beauty. Positions against KXL include understanding/belief that impeding/delaying/stopping KXL will have degrees of impact on the scale of tarsands development. If nothing else, for some, it's presumed protests may bring the focus on a requirement for 'greater sustainability' focused development... bring the focus on carbon-capture deployments which at least addresses the extraction side. There is, of course, a margin point where the very expensive extraction of tarsands sludge will slow/stop if markets aren't available... there's a technology driven price impacting reason why initial expansion started up. Rail is expensive; much more so than by pipeline. It's all about the margins and available markets. Of course.

.

And by the way, funny how the US and its state governments aren't doing anything much to stop fracking, despite all the concern among the environmental lobby about the poisoning of the watershed and possible earthquakes.

there are pockets of new regulation coming forward... on introducing moratoriums even (New York State). It's not widespread - something about the power of industry/lobbyists. Go figure.

.

[Argus]

yabut, there has to be a perception of fairness, of no bias, of an independent review. Why do think the initial review had a 'do-over'?

Because Obama wanted to delay his decision longer.

as I said, I've rarely encountered any discussion around KXL that includes your NAFTA angle. I'd think the fact all current Canadian exports flood the U.S. wouldn't provide grounds... any treaty abrogation grounds... to suggest 'denied access'.

That oil is there because it has no other outlet. We are not doing our best to build new outlets which will take the oil elsewhere and inevitably reduce our shipments to the US below the percentage of production required by NAFTA.

nice one! You're not prepared to discuss the effects... but you're certainly prepared to state there are none!

That's right. It's a freaking pipeline! There are hundreds of thousands of miles of pipeline under north America! The idea this one is somehow different and more dangerous is total crap! This has nothing to do with the pipeline and everything to do with the oil sands. My point is that keystone or not, those oil sands are going to be developed and the oil is going to be shipped. And you know it will be. Nothing is going to stand in the way of hundreds of billions of dollars of economic development and activity.

As far as emissions are concerned, hey, would you rather they produce oil and gas for power use or would you rather have coal fired plants used? Right now there are 1200 coal fired power stations being planned in the world. A gush of oil and especially gas, lowering the price, could certainly influence that, especially in China.

Edited April 26, 2014 by Argus

[waldo]

That oil is there because it has no other outlet. We are not doing our best to build new outlets which will take the oil elsewhere and inevitably reduce our shipments to the US below the percentage of production required by NAFTA.

I was skeptical of your NAFTA angle from the onset; after trying to find anything of substance/significance from a legitimate source, I'm now even more so. Unless you can provide a linked reference that speaks to the legitimacy of a NAFTA abrogation concern relative to 'blocking' KXL... one aligning with your 'percentage drop' aspect, I ain't buyin your claim.

.

That's right. It's a freaking pipeline! There are hundreds of thousands of miles of pipeline under north America! The idea this one is somehow different and more dangerous is total crap! This has nothing to do with the pipeline and everything to do with the oil sands. My point is that keystone or not, those oil sands are going to be developed and the oil is going to be shipped. And you know it will be. Nothing is going to stand in the way of hundreds of billions of dollars of economic development and activity.

not sure why you insist in continuing to dwell on the "leak" angle. It's not been my focus in any of my responses to you; however, that is a legitimate aspect from the perspective of those directly affected Nebraskans with concerns over possible aquifier impacts. Again, as I said, its about margins and markets - obviously. The sludge is significantly more costly to extract/refine... see "bitumen bubble". Rail costs significantly add to the cost disparity between tarsands sludge and the benchmark WTI. Delays on new pipelines/markets and/or rail being unable to meet intended growth/expansion are parts of the protest/concern mix that presumes to put greater emphasis on 'sustainable' development, carbon-capture deployments, industry and government alignments with "eventual" binding emissions reduction agreements. Considering the WTW emissions for sludge can be as high as 30% more than traditional crude oil, your claim that unfettered tarsands development will occur, regardless, is highly presumptive.

.

As far as emissions are concerned, hey, would you rather they produce oil and gas for power use or would you rather have coal fired plants used? Right now there are 1200 coal fired power stations being planned in the world. A gush of oil and especially gas, lowering the price, could certainly influence that, especially in China.

typically, new coal plants bring signficant emission reduction efficiences as compared to old plants... notwithstanding carbon-capture. Many new plants are outright replacements for older plants that are shuttered when the new plants come online. With this KXL focus and an emphasis on the U.S., little power generation associates with oil. In that regard and with you speaking of China, nice to see you coming around, unintentionally or not, to a recognition that China/Asia markets are the overwhelming target intent for KXL.

[dre]

consumers of oil and oil products, which is everybody.

The oil will now go to market on the much less safe and more expensive rail systems.

That's progress.

Americans can already easily obtain all the oil that they need, these pipeline wont make any difference to them at all. They would be better off spending that money to develop their own shale formations. And Canada would be better off building a pipeline to Ontario where all our refineries are currently refining imported oil.

[Smallc]

We will be building a pipeline to Ontario (2 in fact). Those don't eat all of the new capacity.

[dre]

We will be building a pipeline to Ontario (2 in fact). Those don't eat all of the new capacity.

Theres ports out east too though. And the reality is the US isnt going to need out oil and gas for long. Domestic production is exploding in the US.

[Smallc]

There's questions of how sustainable shale oil is, and most projections have the US still needing our oil for a couple of decades.

[waldo]

Argus! Imagine... a TransCanada director has just stepped forward to rally the NAFTA angle you were pushing - go figure!

per norm, FP skews the title improperly with the "Ottawa mulls" suggestion... meanwhile the comment from "Ottawa" in the article reads: "Foreign Affairs spokesperson Caitlin Workman said it would be “premature to speculate” on whether a NAFTA challenge is in the works." Apparently, to FP, that statement constitutes a "mull".

[Argus]

Argus! Imagine... a TransCanada director has just stepped forward to rally the NAFTA angle you were pushing - go figure!

per norm, FP skews the title improperly with the "Ottawa mulls" suggestion... meanwhile the comment from "Ottawa" in the article reads: "Foreign Affairs spokesperson Caitlin Workman said it would be “premature to speculate” on whether a NAFTA challenge is in the works." Apparently, to FP, that statement constitutes a "mull".

You can try to skew ths story as much as you want but it does quote others saying Ottawa has a strong case here. And as I said, it does seem to contravene NAFTA. Clearly the government doesn't want to publicly make threats, but it has been signalling that's an option if all else fails.