Pipeline Politics - EU wants more North American Oil

[Keepitsimple]

The European Union was set to press Obama at a summit in Brussels to help reduce Europe's reliance on Russian energy by exporting U.S. natural gas and oil, restricted by U.S. laws.

Link: http://ca.news.yahoo.com/economic-cost-crimea-seizure-mounts-russia-121506120.html

It was bound to happen and makes all the sense in the world. It would seem that the XL pipeline drive for energy security now has a global flavour to it. If logic was to prevail, we should expect an accellerated green light for XL......but Obama's hypocrasy on pipelines has dumbfounded everyone until now - will he see the light?

[eyeball]

Of course it makes sense.

The 2nd biggest issue I've had with Alberta's Tar Sands have been the lack of an ethical market to which to send it's oil. Alberta should just leave it in the ground if all it can do with it is help fuel the growth and ambitions of super-powers. I could easily support sending it to Eastern Canada for refining before sending it to Europe.

Who cares what Obama sees, he doesn't deserve our respect any more than Putin or Jinping.

[hitops]

Of course it makes sense.

The 2nd biggest issue I've had with Alberta's Tar Sands have been the lack of an ethical market to which to send it's oil. Alberta should just leave it in the ground if all it can do with it is help fuel the growth and ambitions of super-powers. I could easily support sending it to Eastern Canada for refining before sending it to Europe.

Who cares what Obama sees, he doesn't deserve our respect any more than Putin or Jinping.

Ah.....what? If we ship to Europe, that weakens Putin's hand. It also lowers what he can charge.

But hey let's just keep blocking those pipeline. Train derailments with their consequent explosions, deaths and enviro damage are just so much better.

Edited March 26, 2014 by hitops

[eyeball]

Ah.....what? If we ship to Europe, that weakens Putin's hand. It also lowers what he can charge.

Yes, that's what I just said. We shouldn't be shipping to any super-power for the same reason.

But hey let's just keep blocking those pipeline. Train derailments with their consequent explosions, deaths and enviro damage are just so much better.

No they're not and I don't expect anything will stop a pipeline from being built but I'll be damned if I'm not going to do my best to prevent a new pipeline from coming northwest thereby wrecking another 1000 fish-bearing water-courses along the way and especially if the best we can do with it it is ship it to China.

[hitops]

Yes, that's what I just said. We shouldn't be shipping to any super-power for the same reason.

In the current situation, your strategy of keeping oil in the ground would strengthen the most aggressive major power currently at play, and weaken Europe.

No they're not and I don't expect anything will stop a pipeline from being built but I'll be damned if I'm not going to do my best to prevent a new pipeline from coming northwest thereby wrecking another 1000 fish-bearing water-courses along the way and especially if the best we can do with it it is ship it to China.

That posture means continued rapid growth of transport of oil by rail, counter-productive to your above stated goals.

Edited March 26, 2014 by hitops

[bush_cheney2004]

...It was bound to happen and makes all the sense in the world. It would seem that the XL pipeline drive for energy security now has a global flavour to it. If logic was to prevail, we should expect an accellerated green light for XL......but Obama's hypocrasy on pipelines has dumbfounded everyone until now - will he see the light?

Not necessarily....President Obama has not taken a liking to the amount of time and resources his administration has to spend on energy issues...he is not George W. Bush (with oil Godfather Dick Cheney). Not only does he alienate a significant portion of his party's political base, but he had to deal with two unplanned "disasters" in his first term (Deepwater Horizon spill, and Libya). Europe has not diversified oil and gas suppliers to more stable exporters, and that means continued engagement with "bad actors" and policy conflict for U.S. interests.

U.S. domestic production is ramping up and that requires more capacity for distribution and refining. Export markets for U.S. or Canadian oil would tax that aging infrastructure even further. Canada would be wise to build more capacity to do these things without depending on a decision from a foreign leader.

[eyeball]

In the current situation, your strategy of keeping oil in the ground would strengthen the most aggressive major power currently at play, and weaken Europe.

Starving someone of energy will strengthen them, how does that work? You get more energy when you eat less? I don't think so, that defy's physics.

That posture means continued rapid growth of transport of oil by rail, counter-productive to your above stated oils.

That'll mean more train wrecks, destruction and death ergo; more opposition.

The path to enlightenment is always painful.

[Keepitsimple]

U.S. domestic production is ramping up and that requires more capacity for distribution and refining. Export markets for U.S. or Canadian oil would tax that aging infrastructure even further. Canada would be wise to build more capacity to do these things without depending on a decision from a foreign leader.

Yes we would.

[hitops]

Starving someone of energy will strengthen them, how does that work? You get more energy when you eat less? I don't think so, that defy's physics.

Putin has the energy genius. Russia is the largest energy exporter to Europe by far. If you leave it in the ground here, it means they need Putin more.

That'll mean more train wrecks, destruction and death ergo; more opposition.

The path to enlightenment is always painful.

I guess that's true. More trains wrecks, more environmental damage might help people finally clue in that pipelines are the way to go. Opposition to pipelines on environmental grounds is utter mule-headed nonsense, only hurting the environment.

Edited March 26, 2014 by hitops

[eyeball]

Putin has the energy genius. Russia is the largest energy exporter to Europe by far. If you leave it in the ground here, it means they need Putin more.

Pay better attention to what I said, which was leave it in the ground if an aggressive super-power is the only market we have for it.

I also said ship it east so it can be refined here in Canada and then sold to Europe rather than send it west or south.

I guess that's true. More trains wrecks, more environmental damage might help people finally clue in that pipelines are the way to go.

People always learn the hard way.

Opposition to pipelines on environmental grounds is utter mule-headed nonsense, only hurting the environment.

Protecting a 1000 fish bearing rivers, creeks and streams will only hurt the environment? That's just plain nuts.

[overthere]

We shouldn't be shipping to any super-power for the same reason.

I'm not sure why you don't see the EU itself as a superpower.

Did the EU ask Harper for our oil and gas too? That would be quite a climbdown from their formerly snotty position on same.

[bush_cheney2004]

Pay better attention to what I said, which was leave it in the ground if an aggressive super-power is the only market we have for it.

That's not how it works...about 70% of Canada's oil production is foreign owned, and that includes "aggressive super-powers" (plural). China is now part of the club.

Protecting a 1000 fish bearing rivers, creeks and streams will only hurt the environment? That's just plain nuts.

There's more to life than fish.

[hitops]

Pay better attention to what I said, which was leave it in the ground if an aggressive super-power is the only market we have for it.

I also said ship it east so it can be refined here in Canada and then sold to Europe rather than send it west or south.

No you said to leave it in the ground. If you're now changing to 'taking it out of the ground and send to Europe', then I agree.

Protecting a 1000 fish bearing rivers, creeks and streams will only hurt the environment? That's just plain nuts.

Not when the alternative is trains, an even larger environmental threat. The oil WILL get to market, because people need it, people just like you. If you block pipelines, it just means trains.

We can't live in the stone age, we only exist in our modern way because of burning fossil fuels. Pipeline are the safest, least damaging way to move them.

Edited March 26, 2014 by hitops

[eyeball]

No you said to leave it in the ground.

Alberta should just leave it in the ground if all it can do with it is help fuel the growth and ambitions of super-powers.

Post #2.

Pipeline are the safest, least damaging way to move them.

Not where rivers get in the way. There has never been a mega-project in BC involving stream crossings that didn't kill a pile of fish and impact a lot of other people's livelihoods in the process.

Send it east.

Edited March 26, 2014 by eyeball

[hitops]

Post #2.

Not where rivers get in the way. There has never been a mega-project in BC involving stream crossings that didn't kill a pile of fish and impact a lot of other people's livelihoods in the process.

Trains are even worse though. You're going to have to deal with the fact that oil will be transported across physical space, and in doing so the infrastructure will interact with matter. Given that, pipelines would serve your stated goals better than trains. NIMBY attitudes don't really help anyone.

[eyeball]

I am dealing with it by saying, send it east.

[eyeball]

That's not how it works...about 70% of Canada's oil production is foreign owned, and that includes "aggressive super-powers" (plural). China is now part of the club.

These should have been disallowed decades ago for their bad behaviour. Now they should be seized.

There's more to life than fish.

And aggressive super-powers.

[hitops]

I am dealing with it by saying, send it east.

But this is tunnel vision. We don't live on an island connected to Europe and China. This is a global economy. Sending it anywhere, and sending as much as possible weakens Putin's position. More oil on the world market period, anywhere, means lower prices. Lower prices, means Putin makes less money, and has less influence.

These should have been disallowed decades ago for their bad behaviour. Now they should be seized.

Lots of countries have tried this. None are places you would want to live. There is a reason some nations have high individual prosperity and opportunity, and it's not because the magic prosperity fairy cast a spell.

Edited March 26, 2014 by hitops

[bush_cheney2004]

These should have been disallowed decades ago for their bad behaviour. Now they should be seized.

They were....sorta...something called the NEP. It was a big disaster, and Albertans still remember it.

And aggressive super-powers.

Yet, by your own admission, they manage their fisheries far better. Go figure....

[hitops]

They were....sorta...something called the NEP. It was a big disaster, and Albertans still remember it.

As do Venezuelans.

[bush_cheney2004]

But this is tunnel vision. We don't live on an island connected to Europe and China. This is a global economy. Sending it anywhere, and sending as much as possible weakens Putin's position. More oil on the world market period, anywhere, means lower prices. Lower prices, means Putin makes less money, and has less influence.

Yep....that's really what Iraq was all about. Not oil for the Americans, but more oil production for an insatiable global appetite. Russia is a major player in oil and gas...Putin knows how to leverage that.

[overthere]

I am dealing with it by saying, send it east.

Good point.

Alberta is really short on cash right now, to the extent we ran our Premier out of Dodge for wasting a few bucks.

Send it east....

Would you mind awfully if we charged big tariffs on every train, vehicle and human that leaves BC and crosses the BC border into AB? We fear the environemntal consequences.

[guyser]

Send it east....

Would you mind awfully if we charged big tariffs on every train, vehicle and human that leaves BC and crosses the BC border into AB? We fear the environemntal consequences.

Sure go ahead, pretty sure that would be illegal though.

BC alta and Sask signed a deal to do away with barriers/tariffs.

[overthere]

Sure go ahead, pretty sure that would be illegal though.

BC alta and Sask signed a deal to do away with barriers/tariffs

Oh, that is good news!

When does construction start on the Gateway pipeline then?

[guyser]

overthere, on 28 Mar 2014 - 4:20 PM, said:

Oh, that is good news!

When does construction start on the Gateway pipeline then?

Youre confused.

When all parties agree to a pipeline and everyone has had their say, then we will know.

Edited March 28, 2014 by Guyser2