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.

The Keystone (XL) Pipeline Pt 2

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Fri 29 May 2015, 08:26:07

Cog - Any one is free to hate fossil fuel consumption. Even folks like Graeme who also consumes fossil fuels. But that doesn't excuse pretending that what's happening isn’t actually happening. Exactly how does it help his cause to try to convince folks that the tide is turning away from the oil sands and other fossil fuels? All that can accomplish is convincing them to not worry about the problem…its being dealt with.

Again this situation: the Rockman makes a good living developing fossil fuels and is the one warning about expansion of those sources. OTOH Graeme, the great defender of the environment, preaches that the forces of good are slowly winning the battle against the oil patch.

Really bizarre, don’t you think?
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 10533
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: The Keystone (XL) Pipeline (merged)

Unread postby Graeme » Tue 02 Jun 2015, 20:58:48

Tar Sands Pipeline Vetoed, Climate Threat Marches On

Pres. Barack Obama vetoed a bill to approve construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline on February 24—not because of climate change, not because of low oil prices and not because of the risks from leaking diluted bitumen from the tar sands. Obama vetoed the pipeline bill "because this act of Congress conflicts with established executive branch procedures." In other words Obama used the third veto of his presidency to preserve the prerogatives of his office, in this case evaluating cross-border pipelines and the ever-vague "national interest."


There is little doubt that oil made from the bitumen stuck to sand buried beneath Alberta is among the dirtiest kinds of oil found on the planet. Interestingly, about the only worse type of petroleum is the heavy crude from Venezuela that refineries on the Texas coast already process—the same facilities that Keystone aims to reach. And that's just the climate accounting, which leaves out very real health impacts on local people and communities as well as the boreal forest, rivers and lakes of Alberta.

But there is little doubt that without Keystone XL, less tar sands oil will find its way out of the ground and, perhaps more importantly, will not be as cheap—and in a time of low oil prices that may prove to be the difference.

Every bit of infrastructure must be accounted for in some kind of global ledger as either adding more or adding less CO2 while in use. Such energy transitions take decades but there are obvious swaps, like substituting anything for coal or using less of the tar sands.


scientificamerican
Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe. H. G. Wells.
Fatih Birol's motto: leave oil before it leaves us.
User avatar
Graeme
Anti-Matter
Anti-Matter
 
Posts: 13257
Joined: Fri 04 Mar 2005, 03:00:00
Location: New Zealand

Re: The Keystone (XL) Pipeline (merged)

Unread postby Graeme » Wed 24 Jun 2015, 18:49:57

Keystone XL Pipeline Debate: Canadian Oil Sands Crude Produces Greater Emissions Than Conventional Oils, DOE Study Finds

Opponents of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline from Canada to Texas may have another arrow in their quiver. A new study funded by the U.S. Department of Energy found crude extracted from Canada’s oil sands region leads to greenhouse gas emissions that are 20 percent higher on average than emissions from conventionally produced U.S. crude.

President Barack Obama, who has the final say on the pipeline’s approval, has said he won’t green-light the project if it significantly exacerbates global warming pollution. Critics have dubbed the Keystone XL a carbon bomb because Canadian oil sands crude requires extensive amounts of energy to extract, process and refine compared with other types of crude.


ibtimes
Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe. H. G. Wells.
Fatih Birol's motto: leave oil before it leaves us.
User avatar
Graeme
Anti-Matter
Anti-Matter
 
Posts: 13257
Joined: Fri 04 Mar 2005, 03:00:00
Location: New Zealand

Re: The Keystone (XL) Pipeline (merged)

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Wed 24 Jun 2015, 20:03:15

Thank goodness. I'm so relieved that the 500%+ increase in coal exports from govt leases that the POTUS overseas now being burned in China won't contribute to AGW. I was foolishly worried for a while. LOL
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 10533
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: The Keystone (XL) Pipeline (merged)

Unread postby Graeme » Wed 24 Jun 2015, 20:13:24

What's that got to do with Keystone?
Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe. H. G. Wells.
Fatih Birol's motto: leave oil before it leaves us.
User avatar
Graeme
Anti-Matter
Anti-Matter
 
Posts: 13257
Joined: Fri 04 Mar 2005, 03:00:00
Location: New Zealand

Re: The Keystone (XL) Pipeline (merged)

Unread postby Synapsid » Wed 24 Jun 2015, 22:52:13

RCKMAN,

China? Last numbers I saw showed four times as much going to Europe as to China. Give them Europeans credit where credit is due. I guess.
Synapsid
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 780
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 20:21:50

Re: The Keystone (XL) Pipeline (merged)

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Thu 25 Jun 2015, 09:31:02

Graeme - "What's that got to do with Keystone?" It has everything to do with your the heart of your post: the POTUS would not permit the KXL border crossing because it would increase AGW. And now you've suddenly turned retarded and don't want to acknowledge that the US booming coal exports to China are going to contribute to AGW? LOL. I have no doubt that if President Bush had been the White House when US coal exports to China boomed you would have called for his impeachment.

I really am sympathetic to your position of putting the current POTUS on a environmental stewardship pedestal while he's become one the biggest fossil fuel promoters who has occupied the White House in a long time. You scramble for every crumb of evidence that might support your hopes.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 10533
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: The Keystone (XL) Pipeline (merged)

Unread postby Graeme » Thu 25 Jun 2015, 17:38:38

No, that's not the case at all. If you read the "China Cuts in Coal Use Mean World Emissions Peak Before 2020" thread, you will see that China is going to cut coal imports significantly from 2020. Imports are already slowing. Back to topic.

‘A New Era': Canada’s Oil Country Promises To Become ‘World Leader’ On Climate Change

Last month, the historically ultra-conservative and oil-rich province of Alberta, Canada, did the unthinkable: It elected a left-wing government. And that new government just made one of its first big moves: It announced a serious clamp-down on climate change.

“We need a climate change plan that is bold, ambitious, and will bring Alberta into a new era of responsible energy development and environmental sustainability,” Environment Minister Shannon Phillips said Thursday. “If we get it right, our environmental policy will make us world leaders on this issue, instead of giving us a black eye around the world.”

According to Phillips, the province will double its carbon tax. In other words, it will ask oil companies and other high-emitting industries to pay double what they’re paying now for pumping greenhouse gases into the air.

In addition, Phillips announced the creation of an advisory panel to review Alberta’s entire climate change policy, with the goal of making a preliminary pledge to reduce emissions at the COP21 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris at the end of this year. That conference is widely seen as the last chance for a global agreement that could feasibly limit global warming to 2°C.

Alberta is home to the tar sands, a type of oil that requires one of the most carbon-intensive extraction processes in the world. The province has come under fire from environmentalists for that process, which produces as much as three times the greenhouse gas emissions of conventionally produced oil. Canada is the world’s fifth-largest oil producer, and about 78 percent of that is produced in Alberta.

Phillips said that the current carbon tax of $15 per ton would double to $30 per ton by 2017. The carbon tax as a whole was set to expire, but instead of letting it, she said Alberta would renew and strengthen it.


thinkprogress

The tar sand industry will not be ramping up and Keystone XL is toast.
Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe. H. G. Wells.
Fatih Birol's motto: leave oil before it leaves us.
User avatar
Graeme
Anti-Matter
Anti-Matter
 
Posts: 13257
Joined: Fri 04 Mar 2005, 03:00:00
Location: New Zealand

Re: The Keystone (XL) Pipeline (merged)

Unread postby Keith_McClary » Wed 01 Jul 2015, 12:32:04

New CO2 rules should aid Keystone XL approval, TransCanada says
Tue Jun 30, 2015
CALGARY, Alberta (Reuters) - TransCanada Corp TRP.TO said on Tuesday that tightening climate-change rules from the governments of Canada and the province of Alberta help justify the construction of the controversial Keystone XL pipeline project.

The company, Canada's No.2 pipeline operator, released a letter sent to U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and other department officials saying that increased carbon levies for Alberta oil sands producers and new Canadian targets for greenhouse-gas emission cuts should serve to help assuage U.S. concerns that approving the C$8 billion ($6.41 billion) project would increase climate change.

TransCanada has waited more than six years for the Obama administration to make a decision on whether it would allow the embattled project to proceed, frustrating Canadian oil producers and governments eager to see the country's oil reach the high-paying refinery hub on Texas' gulf coast.

However, Obama has said he will only permit the project, bitterly opposed by environmental groups in both the U.S. and Canada, when he is certain it will not significantly exacerbate climate change.

In the letter, Kristin Delkus, TransCanada's general counsel, said there have been significant new developments in Canadian carbon policies since Obama announced the policy. Delkus highlighted Canada's new targets to cut greenhouse-gas emissions to 70 percent of 2005 levels by 2030.

Along with noting other policy changes, Delkus also highlighted new emissions rules in the province of Alberta, whose carbon-intensive oil sands are the largest single source of U.S. crude imports.

Alberta is doubling the cost of excess carbon emissions to C$30 ($24) per tonne by 2017 as it studies additional measures to cut output of greenhouse gases.

"Any decision on the pending Presidential Permit application should take all of these factors and developments into account," Delkus said.

The Keystone XL project would take 830,000 barrels of oil per day from Hardisty, Alberta, to Steele City, Nebraska, where it will join the project's existing southern leg to the Texas coast.

The State Department could be immediately reached for comment.
"I could go on, but let’s veer off in another direction instead."

– The Archdruid
User avatar
Keith_McClary
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 7277
Joined: Wed 21 Jul 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Suburban tar sands

Re: The Keystone (XL) Pipeline (merged)

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Wed 01 Jul 2015, 15:07:53

Keith - And here's the potential word play: "Obama has said he will only permit the project...when he is certain it will not significantly exacerbate climate change." when what won't exacerbate climate change: building the northern leg of KXL or burning the oil that's eventually shipped thru the line? A very significant distinction given that the line won't necessarily ship more oil into the US then is already being shipped. Folks need to remember that Canada is exporting more oil to the US than ever before in history.

The KXL might lower the cost of shipping by switching from truck/rail but that wouldn’t mean more oil would be produced. And as far as the left leaning Albt. Govt imposing a higher carbon tax how does that reduce emissions? The companies would simply pay and it would be added to the cost of doing business just as all the development costs are factored in to the price the oil buyers have to pay. It would increase govt revenue but would a single bbl of oil sands not be produced because of it? Hell, the $40/bbl or so companies just loss due to the price collapse would have a much greater negative effect then that little bump in the carbon tax.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 10533
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: The Keystone (XL) Pipeline (merged)

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Wed 01 Jul 2015, 15:31:30

Graeme - “If you read the "China Cuts in Coal Use Mean World Emissions Peak Before 2020" thread, you will see that China is going to cut coal imports significantly from 2020. Imports are already slowing. Back to topic." Forgive me but I don't know how to point out the obvious without sounding patronizing.

First. China is currently burning more coal then they have throughout most of their history. Period. A great deal more than just 10 years ago. And it is on topic since that includes a huge increase in coal from govt lands since the issue with KXL is the potential to increase GHG emission. There has been a tremendous increase in GHG emissions in the last 5 years from US govt coal being burned in China. If the POTUS criteria for not allowing X to happen is if it doesn't worsen climate change then in the case of coal exported to China then he's failed greatly in that regards with coal. Much more so then just building a short pipeline across the US/Canada border.

And that is the topic we're discussing: US govt policies that will or won't worsen climate change. So back onto THE SUBJECT: does the granting of the KXL permit compare to the 500%+ increase in US coal exports with regards to GHG production.

And now the unfortunate patronizing part: do you think the only source of GHG from China is their burning coal? So even if China significantly reduces coal burning that doesn't necessarily mean China’s emissions will peak let alone that of the world. Are we forgetting about the trillions of cubic feet of Russian NG China plans to burn? Are we forgetting that China now buys more fossil fuel burning autos then the US and that consumption is growing? Are we forgetting India, Africa and the rest of the developing world that’s doing their best to grow their economies and doing so with increases in fossil fuel consumption? Are we forgetting the billions of bbls of Deep water oil Brazil plans on producing in future decades?

Originally I just wrote it off as slopping wording on your part: China’s decrease in their coal consumption would be the sole determination of the peaking of GHG emissions. But perhaps that’s what you really believe.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 10533
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: The Keystone (XL) Pipeline (merged)

Unread postby Graeme » Thu 02 Jul 2015, 20:23:20

ROCK, I take your point. More on it below:

Why TransCanada Corporation’s Biggest Risk Isn’t Keystone XL

Recently, Canada and the other G7 countries made an important commitment to end fossil fuel use by 2100. This is significant because it demonstrates a larger trend—the change in the energy supply mix from fossil fuels to more renewable energy resources. In the interim, natural gas will continue to play an increasing role, and all this is bad news for companies like TransCanada Corporation (TSX:TRP)(NYSE:TRP), which has a $46 billion capital program largely focused on expanding oil pipelines.

Just recently, Economist Jeffrey Rubin stated that projects like Keystone XL or Energy East “aren’t worth the paper they’re printed on” due to the fact that oversupply of oil combined with lack of future demand (as renewable energy and natural gas become more dominant) will result in production declines.

The numbers seem to confirm this trend. In 2013 renewable power growth exceeded growth in new capacity for all fossil fuels combined, with 143 gigawatts of renewable power generation capacity being added compared to 141 gigawatts for fossil fuel resources. By 2035 four times more renewable capacity will be added, and oil is expected to be the slowest growing major fuel, growing only 0.8% annually and having market share decline from 32% to 28%.

With the energy mix changing rapidly, should TransCanada shareholders be worried about the relevance of the over $20 billion in oil pipelines being proposed for the next five years? Fortunately, TransCanada is investing heavily in the energy mix of the future.

TransCanada is investing heavily in liquid natural gas pipelines


TransCanada is also investing heavily in clean energy

TransCanada is Canada’s largest private sector power company, and this position alone provides the company with tremendous opportunity to not only diversify its asset base, but to capitalize on changing energy trends. Currently, one-third of the companies generating capacity comes from emissionless sources, and this is only expected to grow as the company invests more in solar, wind, hydro, and nuclear power.


fool

But please refer to thread on Chinese ghg because as you say the story has not ended yet. The world will be keeping a close eye on what actually happens in China.
Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe. H. G. Wells.
Fatih Birol's motto: leave oil before it leaves us.
User avatar
Graeme
Anti-Matter
Anti-Matter
 
Posts: 13257
Joined: Fri 04 Mar 2005, 03:00:00
Location: New Zealand

Re: The Keystone (XL) Pipeline (merged)

Unread postby Keith_McClary » Fri 03 Jul 2015, 00:04:31

ROCKMAN wrote:And as far as the left leaning Albt. Govt imposing a higher carbon tax how does that reduce emissions? The companies would simply pay and it would be added to the cost of doing business just as all the development costs are factored in to the price the oil buyers have to pay. It would increase govt revenue but would a single bbl of oil sands not be produced because of it?
It's not just about oil 8O .
Alberta was one of the first places in the developed world to implement a carbon tax in 2007, with a policy that contributes proceeds from the levy to a technology fund. Premier Rachel Notley’s government, elected in May, has said the province needs to be a leader in climate policy in order to support the oil-sands industry that has been criticized for its environmental impact.

“We need to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions with a plan that is real,” said Environment Minister Shannon Phillips in a briefing with journalists. “We were not taken seriously and with this, that will change.”

Technology, energy efficiency and renewable energy are key to future emissions reductions, Phillips said.

The existing carbon regulations applied to about 45 percent of emissions in the province, with coal-generated power plants accounting for the greatest amount of CO2 output. A total of 6 million tons of CO2 emissions will be eliminated over the next two years because of the new regulations, the ministry said.

FASTER REDUCTIONS

With the new regulations, large emitters will be required to reduce emissions by 15 percent next year and 20 percent in 2017, compared with a 12 percent reduction this year.

Notley will build on efforts begun by her predecessor Jim Prentice to rehabilitate the tarnished reputation of Canada’s oil-sands industry. The planned expansion of crude output has been hampered by a lack of export pipelines like Keystone XL and opponents that have focused on the higher carbon emissions of extracting and processing bitumen, a thick fossil fuel mined or steamed out of underground reserves.
http://www.bnn.ca/News/2015/6/25/Albert ... -2017.aspx
This is supposed to be an incentive for bitumen companies to reduce emissions, somehow. The thinking seems to be that if Alberta has a "serious" CO2 policy, then Obama will approve KXL. I know your views on "we don't need no steenkin' KXL border crossing" but I think there are safety, economic and capacity issues with rail and other alternatives.
"I could go on, but let’s veer off in another direction instead."

– The Archdruid
User avatar
Keith_McClary
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 7277
Joined: Wed 21 Jul 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Suburban tar sands

Re: The Keystone (XL) Pipeline (merged)

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Fri 03 Jul 2015, 09:05:32

Keith - “The thinking seems to be that if Alberta has a "serious" CO2 policy, then Obama will approve KXL." You mean a serious CO2 policy like our POTUS that allows about 1 BILLION BBLS of the "dirtiest oil on the planet" to be imported into the US and consumed by us? And the POLICY of offering over 100 million acres of offshore leases to the oil patch? And the POLICY of approving hundreds of offshore drill permits AFTER the Macondo blowout? And the POLICY of increasing US coal exports to China by over 500%? And the POLICY fast tracking the approval for expanding Texas coal export terminals? Etc: I'll skip the rest of the list of the POLICES of the POTUS since I've posted it so many times.

I'm sorry...seems I missed the news about President Obama's "serious CO2 policies". And I said "policies"...not "words". BTW: is everyone aware that on a per capita basis the US produces 21% more CO2 then Canada? So it would seem a tad odd for the US kettle to be calling the Canadian pot black. LOL. Remember the topic is not permitting the few miles of border crossing pipeline if it contributes to AGW but the POTUS is OK with importing the "dirtiest oil on the planet" because burning it doesn't contribute to AGW? It always astounds me to see some folks try limit the discussion to the environmental effects of the border crossing section of KXL while completely ignoring the nearly BILLION BBLS OF OIL SANDS PRODUCTION shipped into the US by other methods. An infantile case of denial IMHO.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 10533
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: The Keystone (XL) Pipeline (merged)

Unread postby hvacman » Fri 03 Jul 2015, 11:14:11

An infantile case of denial IMHO.


AKA - current spoutings on most topics by most of the current crop of presidential candidates on both sides.

I fear for the country - the 2016-2020 will be very turbulent times ...and we have a bunch of POTUS-candidate-lightweights who don't dare speak truth for fear of offending some portion of their electorate.
hvacman
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 590
Joined: Sun 01 Dec 2013, 12:19:53

Re: The Keystone (XL) Pipeline (merged)

Unread postby Keith_McClary » Fri 03 Jul 2015, 12:02:19

ROCKMAN wrote:Keith - “The thinking seems to be that if Alberta has a "serious" CO2 policy, then Obama will approve KXL." You mean a serious CO2 policy like ...
Yeah, like that. :P

I should have said "if Alberta creates the perception that it has a serious CO2 policy".
"I could go on, but let’s veer off in another direction instead."

– The Archdruid
User avatar
Keith_McClary
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 7277
Joined: Wed 21 Jul 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Suburban tar sands

Re: The Keystone (XL) Pipeline (merged)

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Fri 03 Jul 2015, 12:06:57

h-man: So true. Now that you mention it I suspect between now and the POTUS election will be a very dark time for the truth of our energy predicament to see the light of day. By then end of the voting between the campaign rhetoric and relatively low oil prices the public will be all the more clueless to the reality of the situation.

And the D's may be more guilty of pushing the BAU theme worse then the R's given the drop in oil prices and unemployment during the current D-POTUS term. The D's promised change. And even the most argumentative R can't claim it hasn't happened in some major areas. I thin the Dennis Miller prediction of a Hillary win may prove true for the very reason he gave: there are a huge number of Americans who view the world as she says she does. The R's really don't have much to offer in the way of "improving" the situation except for taking on sideline issues like gay rights, immigration, etc. As Mr. Carville said long ago: "It's the economy, stupid." LOL.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 10533
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: The Keystone (XL) Pipeline (merged)

Unread postby Synapsid » Fri 03 Jul 2015, 16:30:27

Dear ROCKMAN,

Why this constant bouncing on CHINA and COAL? Why? Why?

Yes, the US exports coal to China; yes, the US exports four times as much coal to Europe as to China. Why point the finger at exports to China as illustrating the President's not minding US coal going overseas, with no mention of the European imports?

You know, when I talk to someone (normally I wouldn't) who mentions Obama's War on Coal, that person will refer as well to all that coal going to China. (I don't expect cognitive concord from such folks.) This has become a Meme, it seems, a virus in discourse. Seek to eschew such--you can do it! Others have!
Synapsid
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 780
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 20:21:50

Re: The Keystone (XL) Pipeline (merged)

Unread postby Graeme » Fri 03 Jul 2015, 22:56:36

5 Reasons Environmentalists Distrust Hillary Clinton

Five reasons environmentalists distrust you

The mistrust comes from several directions:

1) Climate change has not been your issue. You've focused your greatest attention on issues you came to early in life -- things like education and health care -- all of which are crucial. But climate change feels like a late add-on. You know the topic because you're whip-smart, but only as a topic; if you really felt it, then the obvious connections with the things you do care about would be apparent. One sees a glimmer of it sometimes: the campaign for better cookstoves in developing nations combines all your deepest cares with important environmental issues. But you could go much deeper. Study after study shows that climate change is hitting vulnerable communities the hardest -- just look at asthma rates in the U.S. and superimpose that on a map of where the coal plants are.

2) You were terrible on Keystone. Even before the State Department began its review of the project, you said you were "inclined" to approve it. That's been your last public word on the project, but your team performed an intellectually corrupt review of the plans, your campaign bundlers landed rich lobbying contracts, and your former advisers took jobs with Transcanada. It was and is a huge mess -- and I'm sure you hate the whole topic because at the start you couldn't have known that it would become the iconic environmental issue of our era. Since pipelines until Keystone were routinely approved, it probably seemed like just a chance to please the Canadians. Had you known it would become a hornet's nest, you would doubtless have proceeded more carefully -- and in fairness it wasn't until the process was underway that climate scientists raised their most forceful concerns. Still, ugh.

3) You took the Obama administration's affection for fracking and ran with it. Working with a deep team of oil company advisers, you set up a whole office at the State Department whose job it was to push fracking all over the world (Cambodia, China, New Guinea); you gave speech after speech in country after country. This was bad policy in the extreme: America, at best, struggles to keep fracking from poisoning its water, and even with our regulations on drilling, massive quantities of methane leak out. So now imagine how well it's going to work in, say, Romania, where your ambassador pressured the government to turn over millions of acres for shale gas development (before returning to work for Chevron's law firm).

4) As the world's top diplomat, you presided over the monumental failure that was the Copenhagen climate conference in 2009. Six crucial years were lost as a result. Enough said.

5) All that endless money. The right-wing attacks on the endless speaking fees and foundation gifts aren't actually just a concern to the right wing. The banks backing Keystone, just to give one small example, have been regular and enormous patrons. It's not illegal, any of it, and it's not quite the same as the way the Koch brothers simply purchased the GOP, but it's not far enough away, either. Influence is ... influence.

Seven ways you could win some green stripes


opednews
Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe. H. G. Wells.
Fatih Birol's motto: leave oil before it leaves us.
User avatar
Graeme
Anti-Matter
Anti-Matter
 
Posts: 13257
Joined: Fri 04 Mar 2005, 03:00:00
Location: New Zealand

Obama Administration to Reject Keystone XL

Unread postby Lore » Fri 06 Nov 2015, 11:23:49

At 11:45 EDT President Obama will give a televised news statement where he is expected to reject the building of the KXL.

Obama Administration to Reject Keystone XL Pipeline, Citing Climate Concerns
http://www.wsj.com/articles/obama-admin ... 1446825732
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
Anti-Matter
Anti-Matter
 
Posts: 9021
Joined: Fri 26 Aug 2005, 02:00:00
Location: Fear Of A Blank Planet

Next

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 guests