Canada softens tone on Keystone


mentalfloss
#1
Canada softens tone in fevered Keystone debate

After years of visiting Canadian ministers talking of little else – at least inside the Beltway – Transport Minister Lisa Raitt barely mentioned the controversial and long-delayed Keystone XL pipeline on Tuesday.

Rail or pipeline, it doesn’t really matter, Ms. Raitt told a “conversation” hosted by the Canadian American Business Council, which promotes trade and business links between the two countries. What matters most is safety, she said when asked about Keystone.

“The reality is this,” Ms. Raitt said, taking a long view rarely previously evident in the fevered Keystone debate. “There’s an increase in [oil] production in this continent and we want to make sure we are moving it as efficiently and as safely as we possibly can.”

She added: “All modes can be safe; all modes can mitigate the risks associated with them.”

Should Ms. Raitt’s understated tone focusing on the broader issue of getting North American oil – Canadian and American – safely to markets signal an end to years of strident, insistent Canadian demands that President Barack Obama approve the project, it will mark the third shift in Ottawa’s stance in barely half a year.

Last September, Prime Minister Stephen Harper was bluntly and publicly calling out the U.S. President, proclaiming that Canada would not “take no for an answer” on Keystone. The wording was so tough that some in Washington questioned whether Mr. Harper had overstepped; in effect, saying Canada would not respect the long-established, democratic, U.S. pipeline review process.

Then in January, Foreign Minister John Baird changed tack, firing off a new – albeit equally strident – rhetorical salvo by saying Canada demanded a decision now, even if the decision was “No.”

“The time for a decision on Keystone is now, even if it’s not the right one,” Mr. Baird told the U.S Chamber of Commerce. “We can’t continue in this state of limbo,” he added, although it was not clear just what the Canadian government intended if, as expected, Mr. Obama was not stampeded into an immediate decision.

In notable contrast, on Tuesday, Ms. Raitt said softly: “I’m not here to give timelines.”

Perhaps Mr. Obama’s often-repeated message – most recently last month when he told Mr. Harper at the Three Amigos summit in Mexico – that the U.S. process will take its course, notwithstanding shrill or insistent demands by Canadian cabinet ministers and provincial premiers, has sunk in.

Making a decision on “Keystone will proceed along the path that already has been set forth,” Mr. Obama said in Toluca, Mexico, noting that his Canadian counterpart seemed to think that the U.S. process is “a little too laborious.”

The State Department review continues. Other U.S. agencies will weigh in, but the final decision will be made in the Oval Office.

Keystone XL was once touted by its promoters and Ottawa as a way for Americans to escape unreliable oil supplies from unsavoury Arab regimes. But soaring U.S. domestic production has all but erased the need for new supplies of oil imports and American environmental groups have turned Keystone and developing Canada’s vast carbon-laden oil sands into a litmus test of Mr. Obama’s vow to combat climate change by curbing emissions.

Just as Keystone XL’s role has changed – the oil it carries now seems destined for export, at least so detractors claim – so too have some of the major players in the long-running advocacy of it.

With Joe Oliver, the former energy minister and long-time lead Keystone cheerleader, gone to Finance and former Alberta premier Alison Redford just gone, the new cast of Canadian pipeline boosters may be deliberately singing from a different song sheet.

Ms. Raitt was still backing Keystone, but it was hardly front and centre.

She made no mention of the project designed to funnel upward of one million barrels of Alberta oil sands crude to Gulf Coast refineries until it was raised as a question.

In response, she said: “A lot of people want to boil this down to: ‘If you don’t put it in a pipeline, you are going to put it in railcars.’ … For me, it is about making sure that no matter what mode it’s going in, it’s going to be safe.”

As proposed, Keystone XL remains an “incredibly important piece of transportation infrastructure,” she said, adding that “if we have the capability and the wherewithal to build it, we should build it.”

Although many still expect Mr. Obama to make a decision on the pipeline in the coming months, there are as many who believe that he will – in Mr. Harper’s words – “punt” again, leaving Keystone undecided until after November’s midterm elections.

Canada softens tone in fevered Keystone debate - The Globe and Mail
 
B00Mer
Republican
#2
With the uncertainty in Ukraine and with Russia, I figured Obama would have used that special pen and passed this legislation already.. you know the one that bypasses the House and Senate and any democratic procedures.. King Obama

 
mentalfloss
#3
Quote: Originally Posted by B00MerView Post

With the uncertainty in Ukraine and with Russia, I figured Obama would have used that special pen and passed this legislation already..

You think that one off had such a significant effect on oil markets?
 
Tecumsehsbones
#4
Yeah, well, they've been hard on Keystone for years now, and the U.S. has been playing it coy, teasing the poor boys. So now they're getting soft. Hey, can't keep it up forever.
 
mentalfloss
+1
#5
Cons with erectile dysfunction.

Who woulda thunk it.
 
captain morgan
Bloc Québécois
+1
#6
Having bagged 2 better lookin' opportunities in approving Northern Gateway and Energy East kinda tires a guy out.
 
Nuggler
+1
#7
U.S. doesn't take well to being told what they "have" to do.

Specially by the leprosy twins; Helmethead and *****.{D I L D O} Thank god for censorship.
 
mentalfloss
#8
I get helmet head but who's d.ildo?

Baird?
 
captain morgan
Bloc Québécois
#9
Suzuki
 
Locutus
#10
Is that barry's mighty pen?
 
mentalfloss
#11
Ok now this is just turning into a pissing match.
 
captain morgan
Bloc Québécois
+1
#12
Well, we've talked about this before.

KXL is being stalled if not denied outright... The Cdn Feds responded by approving 3 new projects (2 reversals and 1 new p/l) that will open the international markets for Canadian crude.

Liek I have mentioned on a number of occasions, the prevention of KXL has been one of the best things for the Canadian oil patch
 
mentalfloss
#13
Well then.

I guess the ethical oil argument was just a ruse after all.
 
petros
#14
Keystone has been running for 6 years.

Is there any chance this is Keystone XL?

Where were the protests on Keystone?
 
mentalfloss
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

Keystone has been running for 6 years.

Is there any chance this is Keystone XL?

Where were the protests on Keystone?

Hoooooo nose.
 
captain morgan
Bloc Québécois
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

Well then.

I guess the ethical oil argument was just a ruse after all.


Do you support the blood diamond trade?
 
petros
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

Hoooooo nose.

Yyyyyyyyy don't yooooooo noooooooo?
 
mentalfloss
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

Do you support the blood diamond trade?

Do you support ethical oil?
 
captain morgan
Bloc Québécois
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

Do you support ethical oil?


Yes... You?
 
petros
#20
He likes the oil from Iraq and Angola topped off with Venezuelan oils sands.
 
captain morgan
Bloc Québécois
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

He likes the oil from Iraq and Angola topped off with Venezuelan oils sands.

Most likely.... Ethics of convenience
 
petros
+1
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

Most likely.... Ethics of convenience

Did I mention frakked shale gas to survive the vortexes? I highly doubt he's the type to cut,haul, stack and burn wood.
 
taxslave
No Party Affiliation
+2
#23  Top Rated Post
The US snoozed and now the looze. Actually by delaying XL they did Canada a huge favour. WE will now be running oil to both coasts which is really in our best interests rather than to the US refineries. Win Win.
See Obama hasn't fukked up everything he comes in contact with. Thank you Barry. We are forever on your side.
 
captain morgan
Bloc Québécois
+2
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

Did I mention frakked shale gas to survive the vortexes? I highly doubt he's the type to cut,haul, stack and burn wood.


Too funny; the eco-responsible option.

Say, how many cords of wood will it take to heat every Canadian home through a polar vortex?

Are their special forests that produce wood that has no emissions?

Inquiring minds want to know
 
petros
#25
My nephew is working on his 4th cord up at the farm.
 
captain morgan
Bloc Québécois
#26
That is a lot of wood and a helluva lot of work.

I am guessing that he lives close to one of those special forests that produce low emission trees?
 
petros
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

That is a lot of wood and a helluva lot of work.

I am guessing that he lives close to one of those special forests that produce low emission trees?

Nah just good ol' birch, maple, popular and fir.
 
lone wolf
Free Thinker
#28
Hah Greenie-weenies around here got wood banned - too much smoke
 
petros
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by lone wolfView Post

Hah Greenie-weenies around here got wood banned - too much smoke

Ban green wood. There are towns and cities with no green or scrap wood burning bylaws. Regina is one of them
 
lone wolf
Free Thinker
#30
Green wood and scrap I understand. Too many folk too lazy to clean creosote from pipes and chimneys. Wood is wood and smoke is smoke. Can't burn leaves or combustible garbage either - then they picket the landfills
 

Similar Threads

1
Blame Canada: Kyoto snub may kill Keystone XL
by mentalfloss | Sep 6th, 2013
9
Bridgewater softens anti-smoking bylaw
by Praxius | Jan 30th, 2008
0
May softens Green view of seal hunt
by CBC News | Oct 3rd, 2006
2
Ring Tone Providers
by newbie99 | Jul 3rd, 2005
no new posts