Conservatives giving up on Keystone XL


mentalfloss
+1
#1
Baird: Even a 'no' on Keystone XL is better than silence

Even a “no” would be better than no decision on the long-delayed Keystone XL pipeline, Foreign Minister John Baird told a Washington business audience Thursday.

“The time for a decision on Keystone is now, even if it’s not the right one,” Mr. Baird said. “We can’t continue in this state of limbo,” he told the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

It was the first time a senior Canadian politician has told a U.S. audience that even a decision blocking Keystone XL would be better than further delay.

President Barack Obama has repeatedly delayed a decision on the controversial project, a tactic Prime Minister Stephen Harper has referred to as punting.

With mid-term elections looming, some advocates of the controversial pipeline fear the White House will delay again, until after November.

Mr. Baird said the greater risks associated with shipping oil by rail, the greater damage to the environment if Keystone XL isn’t built and a greater U.S. reliance on foreign oil from unreliable suppliers like Venezuela all underpinned the need for approval of the pipeline from Alberta to the Gulf Coast.

“Compared to sending by pipelines, sending by rail causes higher greenhouse-gas emissions and raises the per-mile incident rate,” he said, but made no direct mention of the disastrous rail accidents involving oil, including one at Lac-Mégantic, Que.

On Wednesday, Mr. Baird met with senior White House officials and key U.S. lawmakers.

After a morning session at the White House with Susan Rice, Mr. Obama’s national security adviser, Mr. Baird spent much of the day pitching for the approval of Keystone XL, saying it was “decision time.”

Still, even with the 20th anniversary of NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement that has largely redefined relations between the three nations, contentious bilateral issues – Keystone XL for Canada and immigration for Mexico – continue to bedevil relations with the United States.

He had talks with North Dakota’s Senator Heidi Heitkamp, a Democrat and strident backer of Keystone XL, which would move North Dakota’s burgeoning light oil production as well as Alberta’s heavy oil sands crude. Mr. Baird also met with Louisiana’s Senator Mary Landrieu, another Democrat, who is the likely next chair of the powerful Senate Energy Committee, and Alaska’s Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski, who is pressing for an end to the current ban on U.S. crude oil exports.

Even a ‘no’ on Keystone pipeline is better than silence: Baird - The Globe and Mail
 
Colpy
Conservative
+1
#2
Yep, that idiot in the White House has once again proven his utter uselessness.
 
Spade
Free Thinker
+1
#3
Peter Lougheed opposes Keystone pipeline - Edmonton - CBC News
 
Goober
Free Thinker
+1
#4
And a politician. Did you read why, I agree we should upgrade here.
 
Spade
Free Thinker
+1
#5
And Lougheed's other point that development has been too rapid?
 
Goober
Free Thinker
+2
#6  Top Rated Post
Quote: Originally Posted by SpadeView Post

And Lougheed's other point that development has been too rapid?

Every time the Govt steps into the marketplace they screw it up.
Poorly planed yes.
 
Spade
Free Thinker
+1 / -1
#7
Government has a critical role in ensuring environmental standards and the pace of development.
Last edited by Spade; Jan 16th, 2014 at 10:31 PM..
 
captain morgan
Bloc Québécois
+1
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by SpadeView Post

Government has a critical role in ensuring environmental standards and the pace of development.


They are fast tracking Northern Gateway and Energy East pipelines.

In the grand scheme, had KXL gone through, there would have been less development.

Ironic, isn't it?
 
Spade
Free Thinker
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by SpadeView Post

Government has a critical role in ensuring environmental standards and the pace of development.

Thanks, Walter. I am sure if I said sasktoon pie and ice cream is a favourite Prairie dessert, you would have given me a thumbs down.

Let's see.

Sasktoon pie and ice cream is a favourite Prairie dessert

While I wait, a little music.

Neil Young - Four Strong Winds - YouTube

 
petros
#10
Obama want more bbls of US oil in the line. Why not let Canada take any mythical eco concerns and get Bakkem oil to port for almost free? F-ck you Obama. Tell the truth about what you want.
 
Zipperfish
No Party Affiliation
+1
#11
The Keystone defcision will be based on domestic politics, as always. There's not much Canada can do either way, although the Cnservatveo government's race to the bottom on the environment proably isn't helping the case for Keystone.
 
captain morgan
Bloc Québécois
+2
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by ZipperfishView Post

The Keystone defcision will be based on domestic politics, as always. There's not much Canada can do either way, although the Cnservatveo government's race to the bottom on the environment proably isn't helping the case for Keystone.


interesting when one considers that it was successive Liberal gvts that promoted the development of the oilsands.

Might want to give credit where credit is due
 
petros
+1
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

interesting when one considers that it was successive Liberal gvts that promoted the development of the oilsands.

Might want to give credit where credit is due

Pony boy plans on ramping it.to bring the 6 Million barrel a day goal sooner than 2025. I guess the downward spiral will be quicker too.

Apparently green beans prefer we import more than 723,000 barrels per day that we already do from, dictators, the second largest watershed on the planet, communist and a variety of other warring savages buying weapons.

If you live in eastern Canada you have blood in your tank.

Human lives or trees?

Some Canadian oil facts:
Canadian Oil & Gas Statistics (2012)
  • 1.31 million barrels per day of conventional oil production
  • 1.7 million barrels per day of oil sands production
  • 13.7 billion cubic feet per day of natural gas production
  • $62 billion in capital spending
  • $18 billion in taxes and royalties paid to governments
  • Oil and gas industry currently supports 550,000 jobs across Canada
  • Oil sands are forecasted to create 905,000 new jobs by 2035 (Canadian Energy Research Institute - May 2011)
  • Oil and gas industry current comprises about 20% of the Toronto Stock Exchange
Oil Sands CO2 Statistics (2009)
  • Oil sands industry contributes about 7.8% of Canada’s total GHG emissions
  • Oil sands industry accounts for just over 0.16% of global GHG emissions
  • Oil sands GHG emissions equal about 3.7% of U.S. power generation emissions
  • Today oil sands fuel is around 5-15% more GHG intensive that the average crude oil consumed in the United States. 3
  • On a well-to-wheel (lifecycle) basis 4 , the carbon intensity of oil sands-based fuels falls within the range of carbon intensities for other conventional crude-based fuels used in the United States. 3
  • Oil sands GHG emissions have declined 26 per cent per barrel from 1990 to 2011
  • Current Government of Alberta regulations require GHG emission reductions of 12% (from a year 2000 baseline average)
Last edited by petros; Jan 17th, 2014 at 05:20 AM..
 
Tecumsehsbones
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

Obama want more bbls of US oil in the line. Why not let Canada take any mythical eco concerns and get Bakkem oil to port for almost free? F-ck you Obama. Tell the truth about what you want.

You first. Tell the truth about "North American energy independence" and 'fess up that the Keystone XL, if built, will carry crude to Texas for refining and shipping out to other countries.
 
mentalfloss
#15
Hey guys, it's a no brainer remember?

I guess Neil was right...


Support for Keystone XL pipeline on the decline

Canadians who would support or somewhat support the pipeline's approval dropped to 52 per cent by the end of the year from 68 per cent in April. When it came to opponents of the pipeline, Nanos Research found the number of Canadians who oppose the pipeline jumped 11 points, from to 24 per cent from 13.

"It has to be troublesome for proponents of the pipeline and also the prime minister, who's put his shoulder to the wheel to move this forward," said Nik Nanos, president and CEO of Nanos Research.

On CBC News Network's Power & Politics, Nanos told host Evan Solomon that the more debate there is over whether or not the pipeline should be approved, the more scrutiny it will face.

"The reality is that over time, it just looks like more of an imperfect pipeline."

Support for Keystone XL pipeline on the decline
 
captain morgan
Bloc Québécois
+1
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by TecumsehsbonesView Post

You first. Tell the truth about "North American energy independence" and 'fess up that the Keystone XL, if built, will carry crude to Texas for refining and shipping out to other countries.

It's been that way for many years.

Gulf Coast refineries have been importing crude from Canada and South America, upgrading and reselling a finished product onto the international markets for a very long time.

This is one of the reasons that holding up KXL baffles me, some of these refineries exist solely to supply foreign demand and choking-off supply via KXL and/or the oilsands will impact this industry quite heavily

Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post



Support for Keystone XL pipeline on the decline


Already touched on this... Northern Gateway and Energy East will absorb that supply in addition to getting the oil to foreign markets where Canadian producers will be paid a premium rather than a discount in the US
 
Tecumsehsbones
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

It's been that way for many years.

Gulf Coast refineries have been importing crude from Canada and South America, upgrading and reselling a finished product onto the international markets for a very long time.

This is one of the reasons that holding up KXL baffles me, some of these refineries exist solely to supply foreign demand and choking-off supply via KXL and/or the oilsands will impact this industry quite heavily.

Ya think?

Of course it is, and has long been, that way. The world has an "oil lake" with many inputs and outputs. I'm just challenging the rah-rah oil drinkers to state that simple truth, and quit lying to people that oil produced in North America will necessarily be consumed in North America.
 
petros
+1
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by TecumsehsbonesView Post

You first. Tell the truth about "North American energy independence" and 'fess up that the Keystone XL, if built, will carry crude to Texas for refining and shipping out to other countries.

Chemical refining after upgrading. Refined product will stay put in TX for fuel and petrochemicals with upgraded crude put in tankers to head off to the EU.

Upgrading frees up oodles of petro chems to get the chem industry in Houston back in business. Once upgraded the synthetic crude is idea for far cleaner low sulfur fuels than from ME sweet crude.

Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

It's been that way for many years.

Gulf Coast refineries have been importing crude from Canada and South America, upgrading and reselling a finished product onto the international markets for a very long time.

This is one of the reasons that holding up KXL baffles me, some of these refineries exist solely to supply foreign demand and choking-off supply via KXL and/or the oilsands will impact this industry quite heavily

They are importing Venezuelan Orinoco heavy oil to keep running. T

here is a shiny new upgrader in Regina waiting for product. It was built specially for the Keystone and Keystone XL. Once it's running at capacity the third upgrader gets built. The East West will help for the time being but like it or not these $10Billion investments are going to run a full bore upgrading heavy oil and bitumen.

Quote: Originally Posted by TecumsehsbonesView Post

Ya think?

Of course it is, and has long been, that way. The world has an "oil lake" with many inputs and outputs. I'm just challenging the rah-rah oil drinkers to state that simple truth, and quit lying to people that oil produced in North America will necessarily be consumed in North America.

Nor Am will be import free and a major exporter. This has been openly discussed from day one.
 
Zipperfish
No Party Affiliation
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

interesting when one considers that it was successive Liberal gvts that promoted the development of the oilsands.

Might want to give credit where credit is due

I have no problem at all with the oil sands. I do however insist on adequate government ovewrsight of the public resources involved--specifically the air and the water. My impression is that Alberta does a pretty good job of this--they've had to, given the scrutiny. But the federal Conservative approach is to just greenwash everything. BC is looking to take the same approach--bluesky Kumbayah commercials, while cutting back env programs and oversight. I would have no problem with Northern Gateway either if I thought the BC and federal governments were serious about their responsibilitiy to protect public resources.
 
petros
+2
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by ZipperfishView Post

I have no problem at all with the oil sands. I do however insist on adequate government ovewrsight of the public resources involved--specifically the air and the water. My impression is that Alberta does a pretty good job of this--they've had to, given the scrutiny. But the federal Conservative approach is to just greenwash everything. BC is looking to take the same approach--bluesky Kumbayah commercials, while cutting back env programs and oversight. I would have no problem with Northern Gateway either if I thought the BC and federal governments were serious about their responsibilitiy to protect public resources.

You green beans are quite confident a modern pipeline will break like one of the 50 year old ones have that have had issues and no clue that the Douglas Channel everyone is trying to protect has been contaminated with sodium fluoride from the Alcan smelter since before you were born.

What would happen if an LNG tanker had a mishap? LNG tankers and the LNG ports passed enviro with flying colours. Why?

If you lived in one of these alleged pristine valleys where the lines will run through would you prefer a NG pipeline break or bitumen?

Would a bitumen spill be anything like a crude spill? You are aware that bitumen isn't water soluble and poses no threat to sea life or shore lines because floats in chunks?

What makes you believe there is no oversight? Guessing or you have some sort of knowledge nobody else has?
 
Zipperfish
No Party Affiliation
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

You green beans are quite confident a modern pipeline will break like one of the 50 year old ones have that have had issues and no clue that the Douglas Channel everyone is trying to protect has been contaminated with sodium fluoride from the Alcan smelter since before you were born.

umm...no. Kitimat Harbour has elevated flouride levels. Ktimat Harbour and Douglas Channel are two different animals. Fluoride levels in Kitimat harbour are high, but there is still an active ecosystem. You don't just say "Oh, this water is elevated with this chemcial so, we can just dump whatever then."

Quote:

What would happen if an LNG tanker had a mishap? LNG tankers and the LNG ports passed enviro with flying colours. Why?

Environmentally? Not much. Instant catastrophic local imapct of a cryogenic material hitting the water. Explosion would be a much biugger concern.

Quote:

If you lived in one of these alleged pristine valleys where the lines will run through would you prefer a NG pipeline break or bitumen?

Depends how close i was to the break.

Quote:

Would a bitumen spill be anything like a crude spill? You are aware that bitumen isn't water soluble and poses no threat to sea life or shore lines because floats in chunks?

Bitumen is slightly soluble in water, as are most elements of crude oil. The condensate is more soluble and more tocix, bnut doesn't last long.

This report in the news right indicates that bitument can sink in marine waters.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repor...ticle16335022/

Quote:

What makes you believe there is no oversight? Guessing or you have some sort of knowledge nobody else has?

Gutting of environmental legislation federally. Cutting of environmental oversight, research and monitoring programs. messages from the Conservatvies that people that care about the environemnt are radicals.
 
taxslave
No Party Affiliation
+1
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by TecumsehsbonesView Post

Ya think?

Of course it is, and has long been, that way. The world has an "oil lake" with many inputs and outputs. I'm just challenging the rah-rah oil drinkers to state that simple truth, and quit lying to people that oil produced in North America will necessarily be consumed in North America.

Does anybody really think that? Obviously some of it will be but the whole point of the refineries in Texas is export. And the whole point OF XL is to get our product to market. Canada is far better off with Northern Gateway and a line East than with XL anyway.

Quote: Originally Posted by ZipperfishView Post

umm...no. Kitimat Harbour has elevated flouride levels. Ktimat Harbour and Douglas Channel are two different animals. Fluoride levels in Kitimat harbour are high, but there is still an active ecosystem. You don't just say "Oh, this water is elevated with this chemcial so, we can just dump whatever then."



Environmentally? Not much. Instant catastrophic local imapct of a cryogenic material hitting the water. Explosion would be a much biugger concern.

Depends how close i was to the break.



Bitumen is slightly soluble in water, as are most elements of crude oil. The condensate is more soluble and more tocix, bnut doesn't last long.

This report in the news right indicates that bitument can sink in marine waters.

Diluted bitumen sinks when mixed with sediments, federal report says - The Globe and Mail



Gutting of environmental legislation federally. Cutting of environmental oversight, research and monitoring programs. messages from the Conservatvies that people that care about the environemnt are radicals.

WE all care about the environment. Just that some of us also feel obligated to pay our own way and not live off the government. And said government is not gutting regulations they are rightfully making the producers take on the cost of R&D and spill mitigation instead of the taxpayer. Monitoring is one more area where the producer should be footing the bills and not the taxpayer. You could consider any government oversight as a subsidy to business, and we would't want that , would we?
 
Simple Man
Free Thinker
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslaveView Post


WE all care about the environment. Just that some of us also feel obligated to pay our own way and not live off the government. And said government is not gutting regulations they are rightfully making the producers take on the cost of R&D and spill mitigation instead of the taxpayer. Monitoring is one more area where the producer should be footing the bills and not the taxpayer. You could consider any government oversight as a subsidy to business, and we would't want that , would we?

So all the hullaballoo over gutting the navigable waterways protection and the plethora of seemingly questionable actions by our government are simply overblown? Nothing going on with the state of things that you might question?
 
mentalfloss
+2
#24
WE all care about the economy. Just that some of us also feel obligated get successful jobs and not complain endlessly about taxes and government intervention. And said government is not gutting corporations, they are making the producers forsake the cost of R&D and instead, passing the cost to consumers. Monitoring is one more area where the corporation should be footing the bills for their portion of the pollution. You could consider any government oversight as an enforcer of ethical business, and we wouldn't want that, would we?
 
captain morgan
Bloc Québécois
+1
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by Simple ManView Post

So all the hullaballoo over gutting the navigable waterways protection and the plethora of seemingly questionable actions by our government are simply overblown? Nothing going on with the state of things that you might question?

There's a whole lot of shipping of toxic substances off the BC coast already... This isn't anything new

Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

Monitoring is one more area where the corporation should be footing the bills for their portion of the pollution. You could consider any government oversight as an enforcer of ethical business, and we would't want that, would we?

The corps are and have been doing that for years.. It's the green lobby that seems to believe that it isn't good enough and they demand gvt intervention.

Frankly, there is nothing stopping greenpeace, forest ethics, etc from monitoring themselves... Except for having to put up cash, that is.. It seems that spending any of their own money is where they draw the line in their participation
 
Simple Man
Free Thinker
+1
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

There's a whole lot of shipping of toxic substances off the BC coast already... This isn't anything new



The corps are and have been doing that for years.. It's the green lobby that seems to believe that it isn't good enough and they demand gvt intervention.

Frankly, there is nothing stopping greenpeace, forest ethics, etc from monitoring themselves... Except for having to put up cash, that is.. It seems that spending any of their own money is where they draw the line in their participation

If it has been already happening then what was the point of gutting the legislation regarding navigable waterways via hiding it within the omnibus bill? Surely no ulterior motives right? Never happen...ever...

Seems to me the current government is going to great lengths in some ways to make sure anything that might sully or block it's agenda gets quashed.

Consider. They just cancelled BC Ferries summer route 40 between Bella Coola and Port Hardy to save a few million without taking into account the ill effects that will have on tourism operators in the area that depend on the route. It has been postulated that the route actually represents a net gain when consideration is given to the full economic good it represents in the way of tourism. But tourism does not jive with the conservative agenda of wholesale resources...so it's gone...for the time being.

Imagine your whole livelyhood as an tourism operator being arbitrarily discounted by such a move. Most book seasons in advance and depend on the ferry as an integral part of the operation.
 
Zipperfish
No Party Affiliation
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslaveView Post

WE all care about the environment. Just that some of us also feel obligated to pay our own way and not live off the government. And said government is not gutting regulations they are rightfully making the producers take on the cost of R&D and spill mitigation instead of the taxpayer. Monitoring is one more area where the producer should be footing the bills and not the taxpayer. You could consider any government oversight as a subsidy to business, and we would't want that , would we?

I support industry taking on responsibilities for monitoring, R&D and spill mitigation. It's already an integral part of the system. The oversight means someone is making suyre that industries are living up to their responsibility to do this. They can be in a conflict of interest if left as sole stewards of the environment. They have responsibilities to their shareholders and if they can privatize gains and socialize losses, they will maximize profits. Because the air and water are public resources, we need a public body--the government--to look out for them.
 
captain morgan
Bloc Québécois
+1
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by Simple ManView Post

Seems to me the current government is going to great lengths in some ways to make sure anything that might sully or block it's agenda gets quashed.

My take is that the current gvt is taking steps to ensure that lobby groups or one jurisdiction (in this case, BC) don't hold the rest of the nation hostage.

Sask could just as easily refuse to allow any hazardous materials to cross through on rail.. That would kind of nullify CN and CPR's effectiveness, right?

BC is attempting to do that via the ports.. To my knowledge, the ports and shorelines are a Federal responsibility, just like the rail ways and airports

Quote: Originally Posted by Simple ManView Post

Consider. They just cancelled BC Ferries summer route 40 between Bella Coola and Port Hardy to save a few million without taking into account the ill effects that will have on tourism operators in the area that depend on the route. It has been postulated that the route actually represents a net gain when consideration is given to the full economic good it represents in the way of tourism. But tourism does not jive with the conservative agenda of wholesale resources...so it's gone...for the time being.

Talk to BC Ferries about that... Nothing to do with the Feds or Omnibus

Quote: Originally Posted by Simple ManView Post

Imagine your whole livelyhood as an tourism operator being arbitrarily discounted by such a move. Most book seasons in advance and depend on the ferry as an integral part of the operation.

That is exactly what you proposed earlier with the suggestion to nationalize resources.
 
Zipperfish
No Party Affiliation
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

Frankly, there is nothing stopping greenpeace, forest ethics, etc from monitoring themselves... Except for having to put up cash, that is.. It seems that spending any of their own money is where they draw the line in their participation

I wouldn't expect much from Greenpeace, but other Environmentnal groups can and do take action. Some do monitoring. Some just buy land they want preserved (e.g. Ducks UNlimited) and some take teh government to court when they think it isn't doing its job.

Greenpeace is like the marketing end. Markerters never have a real firm grasp of what the product they are selling is, but can get it on TV for you.
 
Simple Man
Free Thinker
+1
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

My take is that the current gvt is taking steps to ensure that lobby groups or one jurisdiction (in this case, BC) don't hold the rest of the nation hostage.

Sask could just as easily refuse to allow any hazardous materials to cross through on rail.. That would kind of nullify CN and CPR's effectiveness, right?

BC is attempting to do that via the ports.. To my knowledge, the ports and shorelines are a Federal responsibility, just like the rail ways and airports

Yeah. So the 2000 scientists, the muzzling of them also, the gutting of the DFO libraries, things of this nature are all measures to calm the waters or prevent lobby groups from influencing things?. I don't buy it. Further you don't suspect that there mightn't be some actions ensuring certain lobby group's agenda take priority? Specifically lobbying efforts by the resource sector?



Talk to BC Ferries about that... Nothing to do with the Feds or Omnibus

Ya....kinda screwed the pooch on that one.



That is exactly what you proposed earlier with the suggestion to nationalize resources.

How so?

-----------
 

Similar Threads

17
Keystone XL Likely Dead
by mentalfloss | Oct 7th, 2012
no new posts