Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

The Keystone (XL) Pipeline Pt 2

General discussions of the systemic, societal and civilisational effects of depletion.

Re: Obama Administration to Reject Keystone XL

Unread postby Sixstrings » Sat 07 Nov 2015, 10:11:31

GHung wrote:300-million barrels a day? Gosh.... it's no wonder we have a glut 8O


I'm not an oil expert, is that a lot?

There's definitely a glut though.. Canada has enough tar sands oil to last forever, we can just cancel peak oil.

And then on top of that we've had the huge fracking and shale boom in North Dakota, it's on Ohio too. We're actually energy independent.

Canada's in a tough spot.. they've got all that oil.. it's worth so much money, even at lower prices. HOW CAN THEY EVER BECOME big time climate change concerned?

It's just not possible, it's like asking Texas to become anti-oil, or expecting Russia to, or ever expecting Mexico or Venezuela to.

Just look at the reality in Canada -- the "Liberal Party" is tacitly pro-oil. Even their socialist party won't say anything against oil -- the Canadian economy needs it, they're funding a lot of things on that oil money.
User avatar
Sixstrings
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 15160
Joined: Tue 08 Jul 2008, 03:00:00

Re: Obama Administration to Reject Keystone XL

Unread postby Cog » Sat 07 Nov 2015, 10:17:30

The Canadian Premier misspoke. Its not 300 million bbls per day. More like 3 million bbl/day.
Last edited by Cog on Sat 07 Nov 2015, 10:21:05, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Cog
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 13416
Joined: Sat 17 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: Northern Kekistan

Re: Obama Administration to Reject Keystone XL

Unread postby Sixstrings » Sat 07 Nov 2015, 10:19:01

Cog wrote:The next Republican president will reverse this decision. So we will have trains AND a pipeline.

Cheers.


I think the pipeline should be approved. I read somewhere one time that the Wyoming governor or someone said that another benefit was that American shale oil was going to get to use the pipeline too, and wouldn't need to be shipped by train.

Does anyone know, was transcanada going to pay for the whole pipeline?

Why did we turn down free infrastructure, does that really make sense?

Is what Obama did, really just for show, since he allows the oil to come in unlimited anyway, just shipped by rail instead?

I think maybe we should have the pipeline, for national security and energy security in the future.

If it were up to me I'd build the pipeline and leave the oil companies alone, but then as far as govt supports I'd fund green tech.
User avatar
Sixstrings
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 15160
Joined: Tue 08 Jul 2008, 03:00:00

Re: Obama Administration to Reject Keystone XL

Unread postby Cog » Sat 07 Nov 2015, 10:23:32

You need to get with the program Sixstrings. Anything that supports the oil industry and industrialization must be destroyed by whatever means necessary. We have a planet to save and whatever pain this causes humans is beside the point. Or maybe it is the point I'm not sure.
User avatar
Cog
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 13416
Joined: Sat 17 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: Northern Kekistan

Re: Obama Administration to Reject Keystone XL

Unread postby GHung » Sat 07 Nov 2015, 10:25:51

Six said; "I'm not an oil expert, is that a lot?"

Gosh, Six, as a regular here, one would think you were paying attention to some basic oil production stats. Since world oil production is currently a little less than 100 million barrels per day (last I looked), yes that's over 3 times world production, obviously a SNAFU, either by the Premier or the writers. Of course, math was never a politician's strongest suit, and the only stats that matter are the ones they pull out of their a$$es.
Blessed are the Meek, for they shall inherit nothing but their Souls. - Anonymous Ghung Person
User avatar
GHung
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3093
Joined: Tue 08 Sep 2009, 16:06:11
Location: Moksha, Nearvana

Re: Obama Administration to Reject Keystone XL

Unread postby GHung » Sat 07 Nov 2015, 10:34:23

Cog said; "We have a planet to save and whatever pain this causes humans is beside the point."

All sarcasm aside, Cog, folks like you decided at some point that this is your planet to exploit and trash. Pain to humans is an eventual given, but it's not their planet to kill. It was here for billions of years before puny apes appeared, and will be here long after we exterminate ourselves and whatever other species were unfortunate enough to share our timespace.

So tell me again; who told you this was our f&cking planet to trash?
Blessed are the Meek, for they shall inherit nothing but their Souls. - Anonymous Ghung Person
User avatar
GHung
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3093
Joined: Tue 08 Sep 2009, 16:06:11
Location: Moksha, Nearvana

Re: Obama Administration to Reject Keystone XL

Unread postby Cog » Sat 07 Nov 2015, 10:37:21

The apex predator generally decides what is within his purview to hunt. The planet is a ball of rock and water surrounded by atmosphere. It doesn't have feelings and I certainly don't worship it. So yes the planet does belong to us humans. Otherwise why are you doomers complaining so loudly about us humans wrecking it?
User avatar
Cog
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 13416
Joined: Sat 17 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: Northern Kekistan

Re: Obama Administration to Reject Keystone XL

Unread postby GHung » Sat 07 Nov 2015, 11:05:04

"....why are you doomers complaining so loudly about us humans wrecking it?"

Uh,, because some of us aren't sociopaths like you, Cog. Me? I just want to make sure it's YOUR grave our descendants piss on; not mine. I'm just passin' through. At least you're honest enough to admit you don't give a damn. In my case, it's about living with myself. Not sure how folks like you do that.
Blessed are the Meek, for they shall inherit nothing but their Souls. - Anonymous Ghung Person
User avatar
GHung
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3093
Joined: Tue 08 Sep 2009, 16:06:11
Location: Moksha, Nearvana

Re: Obama Administration to Reject Keystone XL

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Sat 07 Nov 2015, 12:53:53

Just a minor point: man can't destroy Planet Earth. He might make some changes to it that might have significant negative impact or his fellow man or other species. But Mother has destoyed more species since the beginning of life on the planet then total number of species existing today. She has also induced climate change magnitudes greater the worse current predictions for our future.

Folks are just being sloppy when refer to destroying the planet. They really mean destroying some of the habitat we need.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11397
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: Obama Administration to Reject Keystone XL

Unread postby dohboi » Sat 07 Nov 2015, 14:38:46

ROCK, there have been very many victories against ff interests. Besides Keystone XL and Shell's backing off from drilling in the Arctic, you can peruse the enormous number of proposed coal plants over the past few years that have been defeated: http://content.sierraclub.org/COAL/envi ... nt-tracker

None are enough, of course. (And of course, corporations will never admit that they were influenced by anything other than the good of their shareholders, but I hope we all here know that this is total BS.)

And speaking of total BS: "Mother has destoyed more species since the beginning of life ..." blah, blah, blah... :-D

Yeah, yeah. Tell me something else that is totally and utterly irrelevant. This is like saying we have endless methane because it's the most plentiful gas in the universe. Just totally idiotic.

The question is: Are we now driving and mass extinction event that will rival or exceed any that has happened before since complex life evolved?

And the answer is looking more and more as if it is: Yes.
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 19990
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 04:00:00

Re: Obama Administration to Reject Keystone XL

Unread postby Keith_McClary » Sat 07 Nov 2015, 14:40:41

Facebook knows you're a dog.
User avatar
Keith_McClary
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 7344
Joined: Wed 21 Jul 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Suburban tar sands

Re: Obama Administration to Reject Keystone XL

Unread postby Plantagenet » Sat 07 Nov 2015, 15:33:04

Keith_McClary wrote:...TransCanada would be able to challenge the decision under international trade agreements such as NAFTA or the World Trade Organization......Another open question is whether the Calgary-based energy giant will try to recoup the more than US$2 billion it says it has already spent on the project's development. Earlier in the year, the company left the door open to suing the U.S. government under NAFTA.....


Good points. It would be ironic if Obama----the ardent free trader----wound up getting sued under the rules of NAFTA.

Given that Obama made his decision based purely on political motives rather than for any real economic or environmental reason, TransCanada might have a strong case here. Obama himself said he was cancelling KXL to strengthen his hand at the upcoming UN COP meeting in Paris. I doubt that an international arbitration board would find that a compelling rationale.

If TransCanada decides to sue under NAFTA, they can choose several routes for their lawsuit:

Parties to the Agreement in accordance with the principle of international reciprocity and due process before an impartial tribunal. A NAFTA investor who alleges that a host government has breached its investment obligations under Chapter 11 may, at its option, have recourse to one of the following arbitral mechanisms:

the World Bank's International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID);
ICSID's Additional Facility Rules; and
the rules of the United Nations Commission for International Trade Law (UNCITRAL Rules).
Alternatively, the investor may choose the remedies available in the host country's domestic courts. An important feature of the Chapter 11 arbitral provisions is the enforceability in domestic courts of final awards by arbitration tribunals.


If Transcanada decides to go this route, the ICSID might be their best course of action.

Image
Mr free trade Obama ... meet NAFTA the free trade agreement

------------
PS Most people don't remember that Obama campaigned in 2008 as an OPPONENT of free trade deals like NAFTA. And yet here he is in 2015 trying to foist the TPP on the American people and running afoul of NAFTA with his politically motivated decision on the KXL. Just another example of what a complete and total liar this guy has been.

Cheers!
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 26616
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: Obama Administration to Reject Keystone XL

Unread postby Lore » Sat 07 Nov 2015, 17:50:23

As far as I know we're still trading in oil with Canada. This is about building a pipeline on U.S. soil. We have trade agreements with many countries, but that doesn't give them the right to plunk a factory down here because of them.
The things that will destroy America are prosperity-at-any-price, peace-at-any-price, safety-first instead of duty-first, the love of soft living, and the get-rich-quick theory of life.
... Theodore Roosevelt
User avatar
Lore
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 9021
Joined: Fri 26 Aug 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Fear Of A Blank Planet

Re: Obama Administration to Reject Keystone XL

Unread postby Cog » Sat 07 Nov 2015, 17:58:44

Lore wrote:As far as I know we're still trading in oil with Canada. This is about building a pipeline on U.S. soil. We have trade agreements with many countries, but that doesn't give them the right to plunk a factory down here because of them.


The only reason Obama has any say in this is because it crosses an international border. We have pipelines throughout the country and throughout Canada. Obama was cheering about the pipelines built in the southern leg of the Keystone. Course if you prefer the more CO2 intensive procedure of bringing Canadian oil by train, ship, and barge, to and through the USA, that is up to you and Obama.
User avatar
Cog
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 13416
Joined: Sat 17 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: Northern Kekistan

Re: Obama Administration to Reject Keystone XL

Unread postby Keith_McClary » Sat 07 Nov 2015, 18:17:00

Lore wrote:As far as I know we're still trading in oil with Canada. This is about building a pipeline on U.S. soil. We have trade agreements with many countries, but that doesn't give them the right to plunk a factory down here because of them.
Where have you been? That's exactly what these agreements are all about. Trade in goods is only a small part of them (most tariffs are already low anyway).
Facebook knows you're a dog.
User avatar
Keith_McClary
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 7344
Joined: Wed 21 Jul 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Suburban tar sands

Re: Obama Administration to Reject Keystone XL

Unread postby Lore » Sat 07 Nov 2015, 18:47:59

Keith_McClary wrote:
Lore wrote:As far as I know we're still trading in oil with Canada. This is about building a pipeline on U.S. soil. We have trade agreements with many countries, but that doesn't give them the right to plunk a factory down here because of them.
Where have you been? That's exactly what these agreements are all about. Trade in goods is only a small part of them (most tariffs are already low anyway).


The only NAFTA leg they have to stand on would be to file a lawsuit against the government for damages on the basis that they weren't treated as fair and equitably as our own U.S. companies as per the agreement. Good luck with that one after seven years.
The things that will destroy America are prosperity-at-any-price, peace-at-any-price, safety-first instead of duty-first, the love of soft living, and the get-rich-quick theory of life.
... Theodore Roosevelt
User avatar
Lore
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 9021
Joined: Fri 26 Aug 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Fear Of A Blank Planet

Re: Obama Administration to Reject Keystone XL

Unread postby ennui2 » Mon 09 Nov 2015, 11:37:25

Plantagenet wrote:Its a win-win for Obama. :)


Quite a concession on your part. Hell has frozen over.
"If the oil price crosses above the Etp maximum oil price curve within the next month, I will leave the forum." --SumYunGai (9/21/2016)
User avatar
ennui2
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 3920
Joined: Tue 20 Sep 2011, 10:37:02
Location: Not on Homeworld

Re: Obama Administration to Reject Keystone XL

Unread postby ennui2 » Mon 09 Nov 2015, 11:40:19

ROCKMAN wrote:Mother has destoyed more species since the beginning of life on the planet then total number of species existing today. She has also induced climate change magnitudes greater the worse current predictions for our future.


Guilt-aversion from a man who makes his money from fossil fuels.
"If the oil price crosses above the Etp maximum oil price curve within the next month, I will leave the forum." --SumYunGai (9/21/2016)
User avatar
ennui2
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 3920
Joined: Tue 20 Sep 2011, 10:37:02
Location: Not on Homeworld

Re: Obama Administration to Reject Keystone XL

Unread postby ennui2 » Mon 09 Nov 2015, 11:43:38

Sixstrings wrote:If it were up to me I'd build the pipeline and leave the oil companies alone, but then as far as govt supports I'd fund green tech.


Your politics are schizophrenic. You can't have it both ways, man.
"If the oil price crosses above the Etp maximum oil price curve within the next month, I will leave the forum." --SumYunGai (9/21/2016)
User avatar
ennui2
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 3920
Joined: Tue 20 Sep 2011, 10:37:02
Location: Not on Homeworld

PreviousNext

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 56 guests