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

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,817
471
83
Obama delayed the project......

No, a newly required federal and state environmental assessment is what delayed the project. Neither of which would have been necessary if TransCanada didn't simply go for the cheapest route possible in the first place. Any other president would have had to commit to the same assessments if Nebraska piped up under their watch.

I'm sure Obama is quite pleased by this favourable turn of events, but he wasn't the deciding factor.


........and we still don't know how long the delay will be.

In a written statement, spokesman for the State Department Mark Toner said, "Any new route would require a supplemental environmental impact statement." Toner adds, "Based on the total mileage of potential alternative routes that would need to be reviewed, we anticipate the evaluation could conclude as early as 2013."
 
Last edited:

mikemac

Nominee Member
Oct 13, 2008
82
2
8
Canada
You don't know much about the Oil business, do you?
A refinery is just not another refinery, a refinery is different than an Upgrader, sweet crude is different than Bitumen..

Can you not read the list? It shows 2 upgraders in Saskatchewan and 5 upgraders in Alberta. Sheesh. :roll:
 
Last edited:

Mowich

Hall of Fame Member
Dec 25, 2005
16,649
998
113
76
Eagle Creek
No, a newly required federal and state environmental assessment is what delayed the project. Neither of which would have been necessary if TransCanada didn't simply go for the cheapest route possible in the first place. Any other president would have had to commit to the same assessments if Nebraska piped up under their watch.
That is what companies tend to do, MF...............save money where they can - nothing new in that at all.


In a written statement, spokesman for the State Department Mark Toner said, "Any new route would require a supplemental environmental impact statement." Toner adds, "Based on the total mileage of potential alternative routes that would need to be reviewed, we anticipate the evaluation could conclude as early as first quarter of 2013."
"we anticipate" hardly a line drawn in the sand.
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,817
471
83
That is what companies tend to do, MF...............save money where they can - nothing new in that at all.

The revenue they lost from this delay would have been worth better planning.

"we anticipate" hardly a line drawn in the sand.

The pipeline was proposed in 2008 and they didn't get around to finalizing an environmental assessment until 2011.

Trust me, it will be 2013 at the earliest.
 

Durry

House Member
May 18, 2010
4,709
286
83
Canada
It's nice to be a critic and a back seat driver. That's about all the "smart ones" are capable of doing. You certainly don't see them blazing a trail.
 

mikemac

Nominee Member
Oct 13, 2008
82
2
8
Canada
Okay then lets get serious here.

Alberta’s Tar Sands: One of the Most Destructive Projects on Earth

Located beneath 4.3 million hectares of boreal forest, an area the size of Florida, the tar sands are the dirtiest source of oil in the world. Few Canadians know what is happening in northern Alberta. While many may know about Alberta’s immense oil reserves in the tar sands (2nd only to Saudi Arabia) few know the environmental and social devastation that is taking place.The tar sands could destroy over 149,000 square kilometres or Boreal forest an area the size of Florida. By 2020 they are expected to emit more than 141 million tonnes of greenhouse gases – more than double that currently produced by all the cars and trucks in Canada and Alberta is now home to the world’s largest dam and it is built to hold the toxic waste from just one Tar Sands operation.The tar sands of Alberta are now the world’s largest industrial operation. Because of their sheer scale, all Canadians have become hostage to their development. Instead of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, Canada is quickly increasing them and fully half of that emissions growth is projected to come from the Tar Sands.This is just beginning. The Alberta government has already given approvals that will double the size of existing operations, and has been talking with the US government to grow the Tar Sands five-fold in a “short time span” looking to move from 1 million barrels of oil per day to over 5 million The Tar Sands are now the biggest capital project anywhere on Earth and the biggest energy undertaking anywhere.With the Tar Sands, Canada has become the world’s dirty energy superpower.

A few quick facts:
• The Tar Sands can single handedly prevent Canada from meeting it’s international obligations under the Kyoto protocol. By 2020 the tar sands are expected to release over 141 megatonnes of GHG – twice that produced by all the cars and trucks in Canada.
• An area the size of the state of Florida (149,000 km2) can be leased to oil sands development in the future.
• It takes 3-5 barrels of fresh water to get a single barrel of oil from the tar sands. 350 million cubic metres is the volume of water currently allocated to the tar sands, the equivalent to the water required by a city of two million people.
• Cumulatively, the environmental impact of the tar sands has made Alberta the industrial air pollution capital of Canada, with one billion kilograms of emissions in 2003.
• 600 million cubic feet of Natural gas is used every day – that’s enough to heat more than three million Canadian homes.
• First Nation communities downstream of tar sands operation have been experiencing unprecedented rates of bile and colon cancer, lupus and other diseased that they believe are attributable to tar sands.
• 70% of the crude oil being extracted from the tar sands is exported directly to the United States mostly for use in transportation.

Across the country, individual Canadians are taking action to fight climate change. Most provincial governments – other than Alberta – have begun to meaningfully respond. But every step forward is undermined by ever larger greenhouse gas emissions from the Tar Sands. If we care about our planet or our future we need to STOP THE TARSANDS.
 

mikemac

Nominee Member
Oct 13, 2008
82
2
8
Canada
How are we getting shafted by exporting refined oil to the US?

Well first it would have to be explained why the price of gas in the US is less than what it is in Canada.

In Texas and most southern States they are paying between $3.05 and $3.14 per US gallon, with some places less than $3.05. In parts of California, Oregon and Washington state the price could exceed $3.79 per US gallon. So between less than $3.05 per US gallon to more than $3.79 per US gallon.

3.79 litres = 1 US gallon

In Canada we are paying between less than $1.107 (in Alberta) to more than $1.373 per litre. Convert that to US gallons and we can see that Canadians are paying between less than $4.19 per US gallon (in Alberta) to more than $5.20 per US gallon in other parts of Canada.

$1.107 x 3.79 (1.10700 x 3.79 = 4.19553)

1.373 x 3.79 (1.37300 x 3.79 = 5.20367)

Now tell me how to hell does that happen when Canada is the main supplier of oil to the US? We are giving away our natural resources at penny on the dollar prices to a foreign entity whether we sell them refined oil or export it unrefined.

PS - I had to edit this post because from the time I started it to the time I finished it the price of gas went down in Alberta and up in other parts of Canada.

Sources
USA National Gas Price Heat Map - GasBuddy.com
Canada National Gas Price Heat Map - GasBuddy.com
Gallon to Litre Conversion / Convert Gal to L / US Gallon to Litre / Convert US Gallons to Liters ( US Gal to L )
 
Last edited:

TenPenny

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 9, 2004
17,467
139
63
Location, Location
Well first it would have to be explained why the price of gas in the US is less than what it is in Canada.

The price of gas here in NB is set based on the wholesale rack price in New York, plus taxes and margin for transport and retail markup.

Your comparison doesn't take all of the taxes out of the pricing, so your comparison is completely void.
 

mikemac

Nominee Member
Oct 13, 2008
82
2
8
Canada
Well I could say put those extra taxes that Canadians pay on the oil exports to the US. It just doesn't make any sense that Canadians are paying more than they are in the US, more than $2.00 more per US gallon in some cases.
 

TenPenny

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 9, 2004
17,467
139
63
Location, Location
Well I could say put those extra taxes that Canadians pay on the oil exports to the US. It just doesn't make any sense that Canadians are paying more than they are in the US, more than $2.00 more per US gallon in some cases.

Well I could say feel free to learn some business principles, then come back.
 

Locutus

Adorable Deplorable
Jun 18, 2007
32,230
47
48
66
Was there this kind of uproar when pipelines were built in the past?

Ah yes, the good ol' days.

Imagine if someone suggested doing the Canadian Pacific Railway or Federal Aid Highway Act these days as shovel-ready mega job-bearing stimulus projects?

There'd be so much hand-wringing and whining that nobody would get anywhere.