Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Canada's new PM will blame Harper, if Obama rejects pipeline

Canada's new PM will blame Harper, if Obama rejects pipeline

Unread postby Sixstrings » Mon 02 Nov 2015, 19:12:58

Obama Keystone Veto Seen Helping Trudeau Reset U.S. Alliance

A prompt rejection of TransCanada Corp.’s Keystone XL pipeline would make the job easier for Canada’s incoming Prime Minister Justin Trudeau as he seeks to reset the country’s relationship with the U.S., which he says was damaged by outgoing leader Stephen Harper.

Trudeau, whose Liberal Party Monday night defeated Harper’s Conservatives with a surprise majority in Parliament, could use a quick U.S. denial of Keystone to focus discussions with U.S. President Barack Obama on issues such as trade and climate. There’s been speculation among Keystone watchers including Republican North Dakota Senator John Hoeven, a supporter of the $8-billion project, that Obama would reject the pipeline shortly after the Canadian election.

“If it’s going to be rejected, which I think most people think it is, the sooner the better so it can be attributed to Harper,” said James Coleman, assistant professor at the University of Calgary’s Haskayne School of Business.

...

‘Soft Support’

In contrast, Trudeau has signaled “a soft support for the oil industry and oil pipelines, but that support is very different from the support we’ve seen from the Canadian government over the past 10 years,” said Adam Scott, Climate and Energy Program Manager with Environmental Defence Canada. “It’s likely that Trudeau will take ‘No’ for an answer on Keystone.”

The Canadian oil industry has been lobbying for approval of new pipelines for the past five years as crude production surges after more than C$100 billion ($77 billion) in investment in oil-sands mines and steam operations in northern Alberta.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-20/obama-keystone-veto-would-help-trudeau-reset-alliance-with-u-s-


So if I understand the above correctly, Canada's new Liberal Party PM from Quebec won't come out and SAY he's against the pipeline.. but if Obama will veto it, then Trudeau won't fight it and "will take no for an answer." And then blame the pipeline veto on Stephen Harper, saying that Harper damaged relations with the US and that caused the pipeline veto.

Otherwise, Trudeau "softly supports" Canada's oil industry and isn't really clear about the pipeline and other oil issues.

So.. we're all talking about putting Exxon on trial, but what about actual heads of state that can't even come out and say they're against the tar sands and pipeline? And nobody really knows, maybe he would in fact fight Obama on it if O denies the pipeline, people are just assuming Trudeau will be "okay with" a veto.

Under Harper, the Canadians were saying they're going to keep doing the tar sands no matter what, and will just sell it to China out of Vancouver, if we won't approve the pipeline. Under Harper, Canada pressured quite a bit to get this pipeline approved.

Lastly, it's not 100% certain that Obama will veto the pipeline. He could wind up approving it. All that's known is that the Obama admin "plans to decide at the end" of its term in office, like literally on the way out the door, he's gonna let everyone know:

White House says Obama to rule on Keystone pipeline before leaving office

Image

"Our expectation at this point is that the president will make a decision before the end of his administration on the Keystone pipeline, but when exactly that will be, I don't know at this point," White House spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters traveling on Air Force One.

Asked whether the decision could come this year, Earnest said: "It's possible - it's also possible it could happen next year."
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/11/02/us-usa-keystone-whitehouse-idUSKCN0SR22N20151102


I guess Exxon is evolving, and Obama admin is still thinking and evolving and it could go either way, and Hillary Clinton just recently evolved:

Clinton: I never took a position on Keystone until I took a position on Keystone
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/256866-clinton-defends-slow-opposition-to-keystone-pipeline
User avatar
Sixstrings
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 15160
Joined: Tue 08 Jul 2008, 03:00:00

Re: Canada's new PM will blame Harper, if Obama rejects pipe

Unread postby GHung » Mon 02 Nov 2015, 19:34:44

Six: "So.. we're all talking about putting Exxon on trial, but what about actual heads of state that can't even come out and say they're against the tar sands and pipeline?"

Can't see how those are related at all. Color me confused.
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: Canada's new PM will blame Harper, if Obama rejects pipe

Unread postby Plantagenet » Mon 02 Nov 2015, 19:36:07

incoming Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau ... seeks to reset the country’s relationship with the U.S.


If he really wants to reset the relationship with the US he should get a big red plastic button, write "reset" on it, and have a meeting with Obama where they both push the "reset" button.

The Obama people are complete suckers for big red buttons labeled "reset." :)

Image
Maybe Hillary could loan Trudeu her reset button----it's like new---it was only used once!
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 26616
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: Canada's new PM will blame Harper, if Obama rejects pipe

Unread postby Paulo1 » Mon 02 Nov 2015, 19:41:15

Many in Canada would like to see Oil Sands development slowed, (myself included). Many would prefer a more diverse and balanced economy that does not simply exist for shareholders of energy multi-nationals. In fact, the rapid development of the Oil Sands has hurt Canada by changing our mindset to one of easy money and a country of many entitlements. Enough product already flows to the south as it is, and today's 'glut' suggests more is not really needed. It isn't competetive, anyway.

We use a little more than 2 million bbl oil per day in Canada, mostly for transportation. I would like to see production confined to our use for future needs, call it the 'Canadian Advantage' and give thanks for this energy security. There is enough already transported to the Pacific though Kinder Morgan's pipeline terminating in Vancouver where there is a refinery. Production could head east by re-purposing an already re-purposed gas pipeline to serve Quebec and Ontario. The east coast has its own supplies from offshore. Screw oil exports to US and anywhere else.

Trudeau's pop tried to do exactly this with the NEP in the 70's. Of course he also wanted to funnel profits and control to Ontario. He is still hated for it in the west. Now, the market can ensure the same outcome. Everyone hates bitumen production, anyway. It is the modern environmental and social bogeyman. I say use it here and when the US comes calling for more in a few years let the export levels stay where they are right now, frozen in NAFTA limitations. If the US gets rid of NAFTA as many also cry out for, then great.....go buy Iranian oil.

It might come as a big surprise to many Americans, but many of us northerners don't really care about our 'relationship'. When you need our stuff you come calling. When you don't you play hardball and use dirty trading practices (softwood lumber traiffs). Canadians are pretty tired of it. Harper and Obama didn't like each other, but then Harper was a dick and Obama is an incompetent so who cares? The regular folks from both sides will get along just fine, politicians and business leaders be damned.
Paulo1
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 425
Joined: Sun 07 Apr 2013, 15:50:35
Location: East Coast Vancouver Island

Re: Canada's new PM will blame Harper, if Obama rejects pipe

Unread postby Plantagenet » Mon 02 Nov 2015, 19:56:56

Paulo1 wrote:It might come as a big surprise to many Americans, but many of us northerners don't really care about our 'relationship'.


Surely you don't think Americans lose any sleep over the relationship with Canada? Hahahah----Canada produces some good folksingers, but really the Canada-US relationship is all about the money to be made on Canadian natural resources.

Trudeau has already signaled he will play ball with Obama and enter into the TPP (the massive trans-Pacific free trade treaty). Check out what Trudeau himself said: The Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, Justin Trudeau, today issued the following statement on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), established in principle:

The Liberal Party of Canada strongly supports free trade, as this is how we open markets to Canadian goods and services, grow Canadian businesses, create good-paying jobs, and provide choice and lower prices to Canadian consumers.

Please don't pretend there is some kind of significant principled opposition in Canada to trading with the US when you Canadians just elected a dedicated "free trader" who will open every Canadian market to America and other countries under the flag of free trade when he signs the TPP.

Face facts---its game over for Canadian protectionism when Trudeau signs the TPP.

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

Re: Canada's new PM will blame Harper, if Obama rejects pipe

Unread postby Paulo1 » Mon 02 Nov 2015, 20:20:08

I didn't vote for him, Plant. I vote NDP. And no, having many US relatives I certainly do not think US citizens ever ever lose any sleep over our relationship. I just wanted to point out that Canadians feel the same way about the relationship. That was my main point. US ignorance of Canada is absolutely unbelieveable, and that is just the way we like it. US tourists spend a lot of money here and are great people to deal with. No problems once they figure out there isn't a ten foot wall of snow at the border and we don't live in igloos.

I agree about the TPP, Plant. Personally, I preferred our old way of life long before NAFTA and any other "Trade Agreements". All I ever see in such agreements is making a few rich at the expense of many. The market balances things out, anyway. Keep politicians out of trade. What do they know about business, anyway?

The market says our dollar is worth .75/US. Great stuff. Every logger I know is busy with lots of work. All our fish has a market to sell in. And if it costs more to buy US goods, then guess what, we limit our purchase of them. It's all good.
Paulo1
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 425
Joined: Sun 07 Apr 2013, 15:50:35
Location: East Coast Vancouver Island

Re: Canada's new PM will blame Harper, if Obama rejects pipe

Unread postby Sixstrings » Mon 02 Nov 2015, 20:32:01

How bad is this recession that Canada has? It sounds sort of bad, all over the drop in oil prices:

Money is flooding out of Canada at the fastest pace in the developed world

Money is flooding out of Canada at the fastest pace in the developed world as the nation’s decade-long oil boom comes to an end and little else looks ready to take the industry’s place as an economic driver.

Canada’s basic balance — a measure of national accounts that spans everything from trade to financial-market flows — swung from a surplus of 4.2 per cent of gross domestic product to a deficit of 7.9 per cent in the 12 months ending in June, according to analysis from Kamal Sharma, a foreign-exchange strategist at Bank of America Merrill Lynch. That’s the fastest one-year deterioration among 10 major developed nations.
http://business.financialpost.com/investing/global-investor/money-is-flooding-out-of-canada-at-the-fastest-pace-in-the-developed-world
User avatar
Sixstrings
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 15160
Joined: Tue 08 Jul 2008, 03:00:00

Re: Canada's new PM will blame Harper, if Obama rejects pipe

Unread postby Plantagenet » Mon 02 Nov 2015, 20:42:55

Paulo1 wrote:The market says our dollar is worth .75/US. Great stuff. Every logger I know is busy with lots of work. All our fish has a market to sell in. And if it costs more to buy US goods, then guess what, we limit our purchase of them. It's all good.


Sounds like a win-win. Canadian natural resources are on sale for US buyers and the cheap Canadian dollar makes travel in Canada a bargain while Canadian buyers find US good costly and instead buy their goods from Canadian suppliers (many of whom are US owned anyway).

----------------------------------------------

PS: I LOVE Canada. Its been a few years since I've driven south to visit Canada but I'm going to visit Dawson, Whitehorse, the Klondike trail and the WhIte Pass narrow gauge railroad next summer, and tentatively planning to do some hiking and climbing along the Icefields Parkway near Banff in 2017.

PPS: I ESPECIALLY LOVE BC where you hang out. Don't you live out near Tofino?

I'll never forget going to a couple of scientific conferences at UBC, one of the worlds most beautiful campuses. When the meetings got boring you could just head down to Shipwreck Beach, kick back and enjoy the beautiful scenery.

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

Re: Canada's new PM will blame Harper, if Obama rejects pipe

Unread postby dohboi » Mon 02 Nov 2015, 20:51:00

Might be bad for our states, plant--Alaska and MN--since Canada is our top trading partner:https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/statistics/state/data/mn.html

your fourth largest : https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/st ... ta/ak.html
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 19990
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 04:00:00

Re: Canada's new PM will blame Harper, if Obama rejects pipe

Unread postby Sixstrings » Mon 02 Nov 2015, 21:21:13

About American awareness of Canada..

What canada should do, is a big tourism board ad campaign. Like various states in the US, have done over the years.

So they ought to do that and that doesn't even cost much money, for a national government to do. They should do ads on tv, tourism packages like "come see French Quebec" and Quebec city at christmas:

Image

And gorgeous british columbia.

For Americans to imagine Canada as a place to go vacation to, and for general awareness to be higher, then Canada needs good marketing and advertising.

Paulo1 wrote:And no, having many US relatives I certainly do not think US citizens ever ever lose any sleep over our relationship. I just wanted to point out that Canadians feel the same way about the relationship. That was my main point. US ignorance of Canada is absolutely unbelieveable, and that is just the way we like it. US tourists spend a lot of money here and are great people to deal with. No problems once they figure out there isn't a ten foot wall of snow at the border and we don't live in igloos.


Just to note, the "damaged relationship" part of that article I posted was a bit silly. But that's apparently a Canadian view on it, that I guess Trudeau will say that Harper "damaged the relationship" and blame the pipeline cancellation on Harper. See, that's what a politician does. :lol:

If Obama vetoes the pipeline then it's all about the left wing climate change / eco impact concerns, Obama's party base, it's got nothing to do with Harper or damaged relations or anything Harper government could have done to convince O to approve the pipeline.

This is purely a domestic American thing.. the tar sands have definitely been demonized, on the Left. Personally I'm not sure about how bad they really are, or not.

Harper was just a conservative, that's like a Republican, so that's why he and Obama didn't mix well. It should be better with Trudeau:



Now, if Canadians really DO want this pipeline, the way diplomacy works is that Trudeau could get that approved if he got along well with Obama and then if Canada were helping out on international issues etc. and on the same page as Obama on everything, then Canada would have some cards to play to push the pipeline through.

Personally, I'm fine about keystone. We don't need the oil though, the idea was always that the oil would just go to the gulf for export abroad. We've got so much domestic oil, we don't actually need canadian oil and that's a problem in general for global oil prices -- glut, combined with global growth contraction.
Last edited by Sixstrings on Mon 02 Nov 2015, 21:27:59, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Sixstrings
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 15160
Joined: Tue 08 Jul 2008, 03:00:00

Re: Canada's new PM will blame Harper, if Obama rejects pipe

Unread postby Lore » Mon 02 Nov 2015, 21:24:45

Mute point... Keystone Pipeline is DEAD!

TransCanada Requests Suspension of U.S. Permit for Keystone XL Pipeline

The company behind the Keystone XL pipeline on Monday asked the U.S. government to suspend its permit application, throwing the politically fraught project into an indefinite state of limbo, beyond the 2016 U.S. elections.

Calgary, Alberta-based TransCanada Corp. sent a letter to the State Department, which reviews cross-border pipelines, to suspend its application while the company goes through a state review process in Nebraska it had previously resisted. The move comes in the face of an expected rejection by the Obama administration and low oil prices that are sapping business interests in Canada’s oil reserves.

“In order to allow time for certainty regarding the Nebraska route, TransCanada requests that the State Department pause in its review of the Presidential Permit application for Keystone XL,” the company said in the suspension request reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. “This will allow a decision on the Permit to be made later based on certainty with respect to the route of the pipeline.”

The announcement marks a turning point for the company’s effort to get the pipeline approved. Its executives have repeatedly said over the years they wouldn’t back down from seeking a permit in the face of political or economic uncertainty. Low oil prices have called into question to what extent oil companies would need the pipeline and President Barack Obama has repeatedly said he doubted the pipeline would benefit the U.S.
----------------------------------------------
Keystone XL also has faced unexpected resistance in Alberta, home to Canada’s oil sands, with the election in May of a left-leaning government that has adopted a lukewarm approach to the project. Premier Rachel Notley has questioned the need for greater access to the U.S. market, which buys nearly all the oil that Canada exports. Ms. Notley instead has signaled her support for alternative routes such as a proposed pipeline that would link to Eastern Canadian refineries.

TransCanada also lost a staunch ally when Canada’s longtime ruling party lost its mandate in federal elections earlier this month, prompting the ouster of Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who once called Keystone XL a “no-brainer.” His successor, Prime Minister-elect Justin Trudeau has signaled support for Keystone XL but isn’t expected to make it a signal issue in U.S.-Canadian relations.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/transcanada ... 1446507279
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: Canada's new PM will blame Harper, if Obama rejects pipe

Unread postby Sixstrings » Mon 02 Nov 2015, 21:34:59

Good find Lore, that's breaking news.

Well okay then. Obama won't get to cancel keystone on his last day in office or anytime sooner, Transcanada has pulled it until our next election is over with.

If it's a Republican that wins, they'd approve the pipeline.
User avatar
Sixstrings
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 15160
Joined: Tue 08 Jul 2008, 03:00:00

Re: Canada's new PM will blame Harper, if Obama rejects pipe

Unread postby Paulo1 » Mon 02 Nov 2015, 21:58:29

Sixer,

re: "we don't actually need canadian oil and that's a problem in general for global oil prices --". You do know that Canada is US biggest supplier of energy, don't you. Plus, You still import 40-50% used?

Hey Plant, No, I live on the other side of the Island on Johnstone Strait (Salmon River to be exact, at Kelsey Bay/Sayward). Tofino is okay, but absolutely nowhere near as nice as Oregon beaches. My buddy does live in Uclulet, though. Tofino tends to be a big rip off. It is very expensive. And, coincidentally enough, I graduated UBC many moons ago. They have a beautiful Japanese garden. (What were you doing hanging around the nude beach?)

I worked in Yukon quite a bit. If you want a beautiful trip (besides the drive through Kluane), head up through Teslin and drive the south Canol Road which ends up close to Ross River. Or, drive the other way after your Dawson stay. It is on the way to or from the White Pass. Every creek is good grayling fishing, but then you would be used to good fishing in Alaska. It is 27 years since I last worked there and I still miss it. You could go home a circle route. What a long way to drive, though. People down south have absolutely no idea how far apart every destination is in the north. Nowadays, I think a three hour trip is too long. Up there we are talking days...not hours.

regards
Paulo1
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 425
Joined: Sun 07 Apr 2013, 15:50:35
Location: East Coast Vancouver Island

Re: Canada's new PM will blame Harper, if Obama rejects pipe

Unread postby dohboi » Mon 02 Nov 2015, 21:59:51

Yeah, that would seem to be pretty darn big news. So...the protests DID work to delay this thing long enough that the economics could kill it.
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 19990
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 04:00:00

Re: Canada's new PM will blame Harper, if Obama rejects pipe

Unread postby augjohnson » Mon 02 Nov 2015, 23:32:59

They're not requesting it be suspended permanently. Just until after a state level review is finished that's in progress. They say that could take a year. They're just trying to push it beyond Obama's ability to make a rejection and give the decision to the next president.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/02/politics/transcanada-keystone-obama/index.html

The Canadian firm proposing the massive Keystone XL pipeline said Monday it was asking the U.S. State Department to halt its review of the project as it waits out a separate process at the state level.

If the State Department complies, it could push the final decision on Keystone past 2016 -- meaning it would be passed from President Barack Obama, who's widely expected to reject the project -- to his successor.
...
The company said it could take up to 12 months for the Nebraska process to be completed, adding further delay to an approval process that's already taken seven years.
...
"After nearly seven years of trying to force the President's hand to approve the Keystone XL pipeline, TransCanada is now desperately trying to block President Obama from even making a decision at all," Elijah Zarlin, director of the CREDO Climate Campaigns, said in a statement.
augjohnson
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 30
Joined: Wed 03 Jul 2013, 19:33:43

Re: Canada's new PM will blame Harper, if Obama rejects pipe

Unread postby Lore » Tue 03 Nov 2015, 18:50:51

True, this is only a request for delay. The current administration can still cancel the line. It's really a Hail Mary pass in the hope that the decision to stop KXL will be shelved with the delay for the next administration. The chance being a Republican win to get it finally through.

However, there is less enthusiasm for it right now even on the Canadian side.
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: Canada's new PM will blame Harper, if Obama rejects pipe

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Tue 03 Nov 2015, 21:05:25

TransCanada is so secretive about the KXL subscription process. The last report I saw was at least two years ago when they extended the deadline one more time. Large capex projects like pipelines are never built without a minimum number of companies guaranteeing they'll ship a fixed volume at a predetermined price. Which make sense if you think about it: would you spend $billions on a project that would take years build by assuming there would be a demand for that service when it's completed? Look at what has happened this year with the oil price collapse. Canada is already exporting a record volume of oil to the US: Every bbl of oil produced in Alberta has some method of being transported into the US. Which, again, should be obvious because they are already shipping a record volume without the northern leg of KXL. And one of those critical methods was the expansion of the Keystone Pipeline that crosses the border. Yes: there is another Keystone Pipeline that has been moving Alberta oil across the border since 2011. It and its pipeline connects have 600,000 bopd capacity...about what the KXL was proposed to carry.

Back to the subscription process. TransCanada never advertises the details of who has subscribe and for how much oil...it's a confidential trade secret. The only info I saw a few years back was the extension of the application clock. Not only do a number of oil owners have to guarantee a minimum volume they have to do it by a certain date. That's critical for planning the construction. And that date was repeated extended because of a lack of subscription.

And why the hesitation by the companies? The obvious: uncertainty when/if the permit would be approved. So companies contracted with other oil transportation systems. Again the same requirement: they had to sign subscription agreements. Think of those as a lease on an apartment: you want to be sure you have a place to live for a fixed period of time and a prearranged price. Same thing with signing an agreement for shipping oil thru a company's pipeline.

Since TransCanada won't release details I can only speculate. But given the subscription time extensions and the fact that other transport methods were found to get the oil into the US I suspect they could not have built the pipeline even if they had gotten the permit in the last year or two. And now consider the dramatic shift in oil sands development with the decline of prices. As more projects are delayed/cancelled there will be a decreasing demand for transport.

Very simply: why would TransCanada build the northern leg of KXL if there were growing excess capacity in the existing transportation system? Such cancellations are not uncommon in times of rapidly decreasing demand for services. Long term contracts to transport oil or drlll wells can look like a sound move at the time. And then there's a sudden shift. Consider one company that signed long term drilling contracts for two rigs operating in the Gulf of Mexico. The decline of oil prices made many of those planned projects uneconomical so the operators cancelled the two rig contracts. And what was the penalty for doing so: they have to pay the drilling contractor $3OO MILLION. Yes: they are writing a check for $300 million to stop drilling wells.

Imagine if TransCanada spent $billions to built KXL without full subscription assuming they would recover the cost in 5 years. But oil price fall, new oil sands projects are dropped and Canadian oil exports to the US decline for years. It might take TransCanada 2X or 3X to recoup its investment...or maybe never.

Again very simply: currently every bbl of Canadian oil being produced has some form of transportation allowing it to be imported by the US. And with that volume not only expected to not increase but actually decrease in the coming years why would any company build new infrastructure if there were no demand for it?

And as far as President Obama satisfying environmentalists: he continues to allow a record amount of the "dirtiest oil on the planet" to be imported. And doing so as he allows record breaking exports of US coal (even dirtier then the oil sands). And to increase that amount he has fast tracked the approval for the expansion of coal export terminals on the Texas coast. The greenies might enjoy the news about TransCanada withdrawing its request for the KXL permit. As long as they can ignore the fact that the US continues to import and burn almost 1 BILLION BBLS of the dirtiest oil on the planet. And does so while it supplies China with more coal to burn in their power plants. Power plants lacking the pollution controls required in US plants.

But they shouldn't let the facts spoil the fun: party on, dudes! LOL.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11397
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: Canada's new PM will blame Harper, if Obama rejects pipe

Unread postby Synapsid » Tue 03 Nov 2015, 21:21:58

Sixstring,

The purpose of Keystone XL has been, right along, to get heavy crude from Canada's oil sands to refineries on the Gulf Coast, which are set up to refine it. The idea was not to export the crude.

KXL is supposed to be an addition to the pipeline network that has been getting oil-sands crude to Gulf Coast refineries for some time now--in fact, the southern portion of KXL has been in operation since January of last year. The refineries have historically been the ones that could handle the heavy Venezuelan crudes (they're similar to the Canadian oil-sand crudes) and have thus served as Venezuela's refining capacity to an important extent, though China is doing more of that now. A point that supporters of KXL haven't been making use of is that every barrel of Canadian heavy crude refined by Gulf Coast operators is a barrel they don't need to buy from Venezuela; I'd think that might help the KXL cause a bit, but I've rarely seen it mentioned.
Synapsid
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 780
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 21:21:50

Re: Canada's new PM will blame Harper, if Obama rejects pipe

Unread postby Lore » Tue 03 Nov 2015, 21:48:21

The reason for KXL was never about more N.A. oil, we're already getting plenty of that from Canada, but to export refined products from it around the globe.

By stopping KXL environmentalists are attempting to make it harder to process and transport it off the continent. Which ultimately makes it more expensive to use. The more costly unconventional oil becomes the more attractive low impact alternatives will be.
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: Canada's new PM will blame Harper, if Obama rejects pipe

Unread postby Synapsid » Tue 03 Nov 2015, 22:26:16

ROCKMAN,

Again with the "Coal to China"! !

How about Europe? In 2014 the US shipped just shy of two and a half times as much coal to Europe as to all of Asia, China included. Half again as much coal to Germany as to China; same for Turkey. Nearly four times as much to the UK as to China. More than twice as much coal to Italy as to China.

Now, there is a problem with the sneaky Europeans swapping coal around among themselves--that's why I left out the Netherlands, who received more than the UK did. But the Big Picture is clear.

Asia: almost twice as much coal to India as to China, three times as much to South Korea as to China, half again as much to Japan as to China, pant, pant...

Why, we shipped more coal to Morocco than we did to China, and more than twice as much to Brazil as to China.

China's coal-burning power plants lack the pollution controls ours have, as you point out, but that at least is a problem they're addressing you bet. I wonder about India's.

Full disclosure: The above proportions do not address the ratio of steam (power-plant) coal to metallurgical (steel-making) coal. The Voices willed it so.

(shuffles away, muttering)
Synapsid
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 780
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 21:21:50

Next

Return to Environment, Weather & Climate

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 31 guests