U.S. to re-route Keystone XL due to environmental concerns

damngrumpy

Executive Branch Member
Mar 16, 2005
9,949
21
38
kelowna bc
I hope it never gets built, it is a bad deal for Canada any way you look at it, except
for some short term self interest gain for a few. It would be far better to keep the
resource here and refine it in Canada. We should not increase supply to the USA
period. Under international agreement, the more we ship the more we have to
guarantee supply.
We need to ensure we have all we need for the future. In addition we have to look
to developing other markets as well, as we adjust to being less dependent on a failing
nation that is only going to get worse. Remember, America is a business relationship
with a neighbour they are not specifically our friend and they have demonstrated that
lately. We are family that pays five bucks to visit and spend our money there. The
friendship thing died long time ago when it no longer suited our Southern Cousins.
America's idea of a two way street is them going down and coming back at our expense
 

ironsides

Executive Branch Member
Feb 13, 2009
8,583
60
48
United States
Point of the pipeline is to move more oil ultimately to the east coast easier and faster. Right now the whole east coast depends upon ships and usually mid-eastern oil. Cushing OK is a bottleneck.

 

Kakato

Time Out
Jun 10, 2009
4,929
21
38
Alberta/N.W.T./Sask/B.C
I just got my phone call,off pipelining in 1 or 2 days.I'll be back in the loop again in a week.
With all the Newfys in Fort Mac right now I can get back to my favourite job without worrying about getting stabbed in the back or undercut.
The Newfs took over the pipeline back in 2000 in Alberta but have now gone home or to fort mac.
Now I can get some of my buds with 30 years pipeline experience jobs.
I like this,it's going to be a good winter and Christmas now instead of sitting at home as my last job is down for the winter.
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,817
471
83
B.C. natives form front to fight oil pipelines

Aboriginal groups in British Columbia said on Thursday they have formed a united front to oppose all exports of crude oil from the Alberta tar sands through their territories.

The declaration is another political blow to the Canadian energy sector and Canada’s right-of-centre Conservative government after Washington decided last month to delay approving a pipeline carrying oil sands crude to the Gulf Coast.

It adds to the uncertainty over Enbridge Inc. ’s planned $5.5-billion Northern Gateway oil pipeline, which would move 525,000 barrels a day of oil sands-derived crude 1,177 kilometres to the port of Kitimat.

Aboriginal groups, also known as First Nations, say they fear the consequences of a spill from the pipeline, which would pass through some of Canada’s most spectacular mountain landscape. They also oppose the idea of shipping oil from British Columbia ports. “First Nations, whose unceded territory encompasses the entire coastline of British Columbia, have formed a united front, banning all exports of tar sands crude oil through their territories,” more than 60 aboriginal groups said in a statement.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper says the Northern Gateway – which would open up a new supply route to Asia – is important for Canada, especially after the United States delayd approval of TransCanada Corp. ’s Keystone XL pipeline.

Washington announced the delay after a high-profile protest campaign against oil sands crude, which requires large amounts of energy to produce.

Aboriginal opposition is one of the biggest risks to Enbridge in its efforts to move Northern Gateway forward. The company has offered native groups equity stakes in the pipeline as well as large sums of money for community development.

Enbridge spokesman Paul Stanway said the affair had to be handled by government and regulators rather than by the company. “This is a ban that would have serious implications for the entire province of British Columbia,” he said.

But groups such as the Yinka Dene Alliance and Coastal First Nations have said they will not support the project under any circumstances. “We have banned oil pipelines and tankers using our laws, and we will defend our decision using all the means at our disposal,” said Chief Jackie Thomas of Saik’uz First Nation, a member of the Yinka Dene Alliance.

Hearings into the Northern Gateway pipeline are due to start in January, 2012, and could drag on for years. Even if Enbridge gets approval, native groups are likely to appeal the case through Canada’s sluggish courts system.

Thursday’s declaration could also affect a planned expansion of Kinder Morgan Energy Partners’ Trans Mountain oil pipeline, which runs from Alberta to Vancouver. The company is seeking commitments from potential shippers for the project. “We respect First Nations territories and we have always and will continue to extend an open invitation to First Nations along our pipeline and near our facilities to meet with us when and if our expansion plans move forward,” said a company spokesman.

Federal Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver, who strongly backs the Northern Gateway, said interested groups could make their views known to the review panel.

“It is a strategic objective of this government to diversify our energy exports. However, all regulatory processes will be followed before any final decision is made,” he said in an e-mail.

Rosebud Sioux President Rodney Bordeaux says he fears damage to cultural sites. Chief Bill Erasmus of the Dene Nation in Canada also spoke in opposition.

Globe Investor - The Globe and Mail
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
117,184
14,243
113
Low Earth Orbit
The pipelines are blood vessels feeding the money machines that will cough up the rest of money needed for the hub to hub infrastructure being built to greenify your future.
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,817
471
83
The pipelines are blood vessels feeding the money machines that will cough up the rest of money needed for the hub to hub infrastructure being built to greenify your future.

You don't understand how the resource industry works.

When you authorize projects for a particular resource, it just fuels more momentum for that resource. No amount of economic prosperity coming from Keystone will go toward environmental stewardship.

It will just continue to feed the fossil fuel industry.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
117,184
14,243
113
Low Earth Orbit
Do you want a green infrastructure? Yes or No? Would you prefer selling resources to keep our dollar valuable enough to pull it off or would you prefer heavy carbon taxes to pay for it?

The fossil fuel industry isn't going to go anywhere. Deal with that already.
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,817
471
83
Do you want a green infrastructure? Yes or No? Would you prefer selling resources to keep our dollar valuable enough to pull it off or would you prefer heavy carbon taxes to pay for it?

The fossil fuel industry isn't going to go anywhere. Deal with that already.

Who said the fossil fuel industry has to die?
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
117,184
14,243
113
Low Earth Orbit
It will always be dominant. It's reality. Like it or not they are the ones laying out the hub to hub infrastructure that will make you feel warm and fuzzy inside.

Just like WWF is going to run our wildlife and indian affairs for our lazy no good govt.

Buy a Coke!
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,817
471
83
It will always be dominant. It's reality. Like it or not they are the ones laying out the hub to hub infrastructure that will make you feel warm and fuzzy inside.

Dominant?

Non-existant?

You seem to work with ideological terminology and ad hominems which don't really mean anything.

It is more accurate to acknowledge that the status of the project may influence the level of dependence on that resource. That is a factual statement that has its basis in reality. To talk about a dominant or non-existent fossil fuel industry is just conjecture of the worst kind.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
117,184
14,243
113
Low Earth Orbit
How do you plan on going green without using current energy resources to do it? You have no idea of the scale of all this do you? This is just one of eventually 10+ lines. Next the potash, sea can, passenger railway lines along with highways of mass scale.

We are seriously falling behind the rest of the world in infrastructure but we need to jerk off the dog to feed the cat to financially do it.

Can you handle the transition?

Do you have any idea what this will do for the CDN Dollar?