Keystone XL pipeline

[bush_cheney2004]

It's not much of a threat.....both governments and competing political parties make NAFTA a seasonal football from trade issue enforcement actions to outright treaty abrogation. It's not like Canada can use NAFTA to settle internal squabbling over east-west pipelines and new refineries that also remain in irons.

[waldo]

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.

skew? You seem to have ramped up the article's baseless (per the article) Harper Conservative "mull" to your Harper Conservatives "have been signalling". What kind of signals?

in any case, if you're keen (I don't have the cycles right now), it would be interesting to frame the supposed NAFTA clause(s) against the verbiage being used... like "the U.S. was guaranteed unfettered supply in exchange for unfettered access by Canadian exporters to its market". Just what does "quaranteed unfettered supply" mean? Is there a legal attached meaning to this... "unfetterd"? Does it mean... the U.S. can come on up and start digging, start building its own pipeline, etc.? Just what does unfettered mean; or, er, rather... surely it's not just what you "want" unfettered to mean, is it?

[Argus]

skew? You seem to have ramped up the article's baseless (per the article) Harper Conservative "mull" to your Harper Conservatives "have been signalling". What kind of signals?

in any case, if you're keen (I don't have the cycles right now), it would be interesting to frame the supposed NAFTA clause(s) against the verbiage being used... like "the U.S. was guaranteed unfettered supply in exchange for unfettered access by Canadian exporters to its market". Just what does "quaranteed unfettered supply" mean? Is there a legal attached meaning to this... "unfetterd"? Does it mean... the U.S. can come on up and start digging, start building its own pipeline, etc.? Just what does unfettered mean; or, er, rather... surely it's not just what you "want" unfettered to mean, is it?

The US does not have unfettered supply. They're guaranteed the same percentage of what we pump that they had at the time. That is, if our supply increases, so does what we send them. We cannot choose to send all our gas and oil somewhere else, for example, nor to refuse to send them more if our production grows. As far as access goes they can't apply any taxes, levees or tarrifs to the import of Canadian energy products that they don't apply to their own production. There's also a bunch of side clauses which don't directly mention energy but could certainly be used if the US was to deny access on shaky environmental grounds (the pipelines, not the oil sands are the only thing that count here). That would be seen as an unjustified interference with trade. And, as the article states, Transcanada itself could sue the US government for getting in the way of its business if the decision is based more on politics then actual science (and again, only the environmental concerns of the actual pipelines would count, not the oil sands).

[bush_cheney2004]

Good luck with that....refining Canadian dilbit for export to Asia is not exactly the "U.S. market". See "softwood lumber dispute".

[Argus]

Good luck with that....refining Canadian dilbit for export to Asia is not exactly the "U.S. market". See "softwood lumber dispute".

The oil is being shipped to refineries in the US for processing. That's a business transaction any way you look at it. In fact, does anyone know if the oil is actually sold to the refineries, which then process it and sell the result, or if they pay the refineries to process it for them?

Edited May 1, 2014 by Argus

[bush_cheney2004]

Canada should build its own east-west pipelines and refineries before whining about another pipeline to the U.S.

[Argus]

Good luck with that....refining Canadian dilbit for export to Asia is not exactly the "U.S. market". See "softwood lumber dispute".

Oh, believe me, I'm all for sending no oil or gas to the US at all. We should ship it all to our good friends the Chinese, the world's biggest and fastest growing economy.

[overthere]

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.

The State Dept has already conceded that there is no net effect on overall emissions with or without Keystone. The oil is getting to market.

Obama has yet to address the overall impact on 'best interests' of the country, he had shuffled and deked and continues to do so. The stated reason for the latest delay is the court squabble in Nebraska over the validity fo the Neb governors powers under their state constitution. That has nothing to do 'best interest of the United Sattes', and is not something the Federal adminsiatration as represented by Obama has anything to do with. The feds have no dog in the Nebraska fight, but it is a conveneient deflection.

It's political of course. Obama has less to gain over delaying Keystone XL than he has to lose over approving or not approving it.

Oh well.

How did that Kool-Aid taste?

[dre]

The State Dept has already conceded that there is no net effect on overall emissions with or without Keystone. The oil is getting to market.

Obama has yet to address the overall impact on 'best interests' of the country, he had shuffled and deked and continues to do so. The stated reason for the latest delay is the court squabble in Nebraska over the validity fo the Neb governors powers under their state constitution. That has nothing to do 'best interest of the United Sattes', and is not something the Federal adminsiatration as represented by Obama has anything to do with. The feds have no dog in the Nebraska fight, but it is a conveneient deflection.

It's political of course. Obama has less to gain over delaying Keystone XL than he has to lose over approving or not approving it.

Oh well.

How did that Kool-Aid taste?

Im not an Obama fan at all... But the reality is under his administration the US has put themselves in a position where they simply dont need this pipeline. Theres been massive expansion in domestic oil production and if they stay on this course the US will be the largest oil producer on the planet and a net exporter before long.

And like you say... the oil is already getting to market. The US has no energy supply problem, so they obviously dont need another pipeline.

[Smallc]

They won't be until 2035 at the earliest, and will still need to balance markets and supply with Canadian and foreign oil. There is also the question of longevity of shale oil. This pipeline is still very needed.

[bush_cheney2004]

Canada / Alberta want this pipeline far more than the U.S. needs it. It is the cheapest solution for Canada and takes some of the domestic political pressure off of new east-west pipelines, crude carrier terminals, and refinery infrastructure. To the U.S. it's just another pipeline.

Edited May 7, 2014 by bush_cheney2004

[dre]

This pipeline is still very needed.

SHow me evidence of that. Does the US have an energy supply problem? If it does, then explain it to us. If you cant, then you really have no idea if the pipeline is "needed" or not.

[Smallc]

The US has a problem with energy from sources that they can trust at current. This pipeline helps to address that.

[overthere]

Im not an Obama fan at all... But the reality is under his administration the US has put themselves in a position where they simply dont need this pipeline. Theres been massive expansion in domestic oil production and if they stay on this course the US will be the largest oil producer on the planet and a net exporter before long.

And like you say... the oil is already getting to market. The US has no energy supply problem, so they obviously dont need another pipeline.

The US has had laws against exportation of their own domestic oil for decades, though that may change. They don't have laws against re- exportation of foreign oil. They may be large producers soon, but they are also massive consumers. The growth of their economy is dependent on energy supplies, so long term secure supply is critical. Already there are several intiatives to get CDN oil to foreign market via the US, though not through Keystone XL.

[dre]

The US has a problem with energy from sources that they can trust at current. This pipeline helps to address that.

Thats not true. The US has a very stable supply of energy and has for decades. And new domestic production is putting them in an even better place.

Whether this pipeline gets built or not, the US will meet its energy needs. Thats a fact.

Im not an anti pipeline guy - they are the best way to move oil between two places on the same land mass. But to pretend this pipeline is somehow vital for US energy security is just a little silly. Its quite simply not true.

[Shady]

Thats not true. The US has a very stable supply of energy and has for decades

That's simply not true. For decades the US relied on supplies from Middle Eastern countries. The Middle East is anything but stable. It's absurd to suggest such a thing.

[dre]

That's simply not true. For decades the US relied on supplies from Middle Eastern countries. The Middle East is anything but stable. It's absurd to suggest such a thing.

Again your reading comprehension is so bad that having a conversation with you is virtually useless. I never said that all of the countries supplying oil were stable, I said the supply itself was. In other words, those countries might be unstable, but they are completely dependant on the sale of oil to countries like the US, and theres a ton of capacity to spare.

[Smallc]

That doesn't mean that the supply suddenly couldn't be disrupted. It's much harder to disrupt domestic North American supply.

[dre]

That doesn't mean that the supply suddenly couldn't be disrupted. It's much harder to disrupt domestic North American supply.

Not really... pretty easy to blow up a pipeline that goes through thousands of miles of wilderness. Currently the US has good diversity in supply... they buy oil from dozens of countries. Their current approach makes pretty good sense for them... expand domestic production... and make up the difference between domestic consumption and production by purchasing from a diverse supply base. If this pipeline was vital to US energy stability it would already be under construction. But it just isnt.

[overthere]

Not really... pretty easy to blow up a pipeline that goes through thousands of miles of wilderness. Currently the US has good diversity in supply... they buy oil from dozens of countries. Their current approach makes pretty good sense for them... expand domestic production... and make up the difference between domestic consumption and production by purchasing from a diverse supply base. If this pipeline was vital to US energy stability it would already be under construction. But it just isnt.

You are one of the many that thinks that the KeystoneXL decision by Obama has something to do with oil supply or the environment or decisions by a Nebraska court.

It doesn't.

[dre]

You are one of the many that thinks that the KeystoneXL decision by Obama has something to do with oil supply or the environment or decisions by a Nebraska court.

It doesn't.

You are one of the many that thinks that the KeystoneXL decision by Obama has something to do with oil supply or the environment or decisions by a Nebraska court.

It doesn't.

Cool story bro. But I never said anything about any of that.

[monty16]

Gee, maybe it has something to do with the people not wanting it because they see no gain in getting it? Maybe, much to the political right's chagrin, this environmental stuff is starting to resonate and they're making a connection to tar sands oil?

Forget it and ship it to China, they won't mind.

[Shady]

Gee, maybe it has something to do with the people not wanting it because they see no gain in getting it? Maybe, much to the political right's chagrin, this environmental stuff is starting to resonate and they're making a connection to tar sands oil?

Forget it and ship it to China, they won't mind.

Actually most people support the project. Only the fringe, out of the mainstream don't support it.

[monty16]

Gee shady, maybe it's the rabid right that supports it and the rest are supporting Obama's footdragging. Rabid right as in teabaggers crazies.

[Shady]

Gee shady, maybe it's the rabid right that supports it and the rest are supporting Obama's footdragging. Rabid right as in teabaggers crazies.

Latest polls show 60-70% of Americans support the project.