Keystone XL Pipeline Project thread

[DINGO Joe]

Don't know what the Gulf Coast will ever do for oil without Keystone

http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=15891

[7,052,770]

This is the kind of issue that public opinion polls shouldn't even be taken. Only a small percentage of Americans have any understanding of it, regardless of which side they're "on," and just revert to what sounds right to them.

[DINGO Joe]

Bloomberg article about the problems Harper's had getting the other pipeline built--from Alberta to the Pacific.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-05-02/how-canada-s-flirtation-with-a-china-oil-market-soured.html

[Ban my account ffs!]

This is the kind of issue that public opinion polls shouldn't even be taken. Only a small percentage of Americans have any understanding of it, regardless of which side they're "on," and just revert to what sounds right to them.

Yeah if everyone "understood" it as well as you do, Harry, we'd all be against it amirite?

[7,052,770]

This is the kind of issue that public opinion polls shouldn't even be taken. Only a small percentage of Americans have any understanding of it, regardless of which side they're "on," and just revert to what sounds right to them.

Yeah if everyone "understood" it as well as you do, Harry, we'd all be against it amirite?

Um ... swwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwing and miss, I presume? I've posted my support for the pipeline several times.

[Ban my account ffs!]

This is the kind of issue that public opinion polls shouldn't even be taken. Only a small percentage of Americans have any understanding of it, regardless of which side they're "on," and just revert to what sounds right to them.

Yeah if everyone "understood" it as well as you do, Harry, we'd all be against it amirite?

Um ... swwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwing and miss, I presume? I've posted my support for the pipeline several times.

but surely you must fall to Nirvana syndrome?  Any and all oil infrastructure must be opposed on principle!

If not, then I admit I was wrong and I think you have thought about this issue thoroughly.  I'd guess you think "as long as efficiency and overall personal usage of fossil fuels keeps going down, we might as well get what we do use from stable, friendly sources."

Which, if you believe that, then we agree.  And that makes me feel icky. 

[DINGO Joe]

Turns out, there is too much Canadian crude coming to the Gulf coast:

http://www.platts.com/latest-news/oil/houston/repsol-to-buy-re-exported-canadian-crude-loading-21590180

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, ain't that a kick in the XL.  Certainly, knowledgeable people thought this could/would happen with the XL, but this is a bit of a shocker.

[dead0man]

Turns out, there is too much Canadian crude coming to the Gulf coast:

http://www.platts.com/latest-news/oil/houston/repsol-to-buy-re-exported-canadian-crude-loading-21590180

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, ain't that a kick in the XL.  Certainly, knowledgeable people thought this could/would happen with the XL, but this is a bit of a shocker.

What's the problem?

[DINGO Joe]

Turns out, there is too much Canadian crude coming to the Gulf coast:

http://www.platts.com/latest-news/oil/houston/repsol-to-buy-re-exported-canadian-crude-loading-21590180

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, ain't that a kick in the XL.  Certainly, knowledgeable people thought this could/would happen with the XL, but this is a bit of a shocker.

What's the problem?

The argument for XL was that it was going to give us energy independence, or if you acknowledge that Canada is technically a foreign country, then energy security.  However, if Canadian crude is just going to be exported when it reaches the Gulf coast then it provides neither, it's just a means for Canada to export their crude when they been unsuccessful in creating routes to their own coasts.

[Simfan34]

What's wrong with Canada exporting oil? It means more jobs at refineries and ports.

[dead0man]

Turns out, there is too much Canadian crude coming to the Gulf coast:

http://www.platts.com/latest-news/oil/houston/repsol-to-buy-re-exported-canadian-crude-loading-21590180

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, ain't that a kick in the XL.  Certainly, knowledgeable people thought this could/would happen with the XL, but this is a bit of a shocker.

What's the problem?

The argument for XL was that it was going to give us energy independence, or if you acknowledge that Canada is technically a foreign country, then energy security.  However, if Canadian crude is just going to be exported when it reaches the Gulf coast then it provides neither, it's just a means for Canada to export their crude when they been unsuccessful in creating routes to their own coasts.

Yeah I'm not seeing a problem.  Don't both countries ship sh**t through each other's ports or via their waterways now?  What's the difference between a cargo ship full of Fords from Detroit going down the St.Lawrence and Canadian crude going through a pipe?

[DINGO Joe]

One of the attacks against Obama was that if the Keystone wasn't built then Canada would just sell the oil to our competitor/enemy China.  Well they haven't been able to, due to their own logistical/environmental issues,  but the Keystone would enable them.  By the original line of logic, building Keystone actually plays right into the Chinese hand, making it easier to get their hands on Canadian oil.

The US still has laws against exporting our unrefined oil to anyone but Canada.  The reasoning behind that law had to do with scarcity/energy security plus the idea that refining does add US jobs to the process and there is a certain sense that shipping out raw materials without any processing is a mark of a third world or colonial economy.  Others see it as free trade.

There are efforts by oil companies and Senator Murkowski to get the ban on exporting unrefined US oil lifted.

 Right now, refiners and US consumers in the Midwest and Rockies and now in the Gulf Coast (minus Florida) all benefit from the glut of oil in Canada/US which makes oil in these regions cheaper than the global market.   If a free market was created and the infrastructure to move all the oil about was in place, there would almost certainly be a decline in US refining jobs and an increase in gasoline prices of roughly 20 cents/gallon  in the regions mentioned above.  Conversely, there would be a increase in jobs building the Keystone (which would disappear after it's built) and loading tankers, though the tanker jobs are all foreign, plus oil companies would get a higher price for their oil.  Overall, I would expect a modest net loss of US jobs and a substantial profit hit to US refiners who have been making big bank on the current situation.

[DINGO Joe]

What's wrong with Canada exporting oil? It means more jobs at refineries and ports.

Doesn't mean refining jobs because we're talking about shipping out unrefined crude and the tanker jobs would all be foreign.  There would be the one US guy flipping the on/off switch. 

As I laid out in the post above, the current situation almost certainly creates more US jobs and benefits to certain regions of the US and US refiners than open free trade would.  You're welcome to do research and make a counter argument.

[DINGO Joe]

The guy that finished 2nd in the Nebraska R-Senate primary was actually critical of the XL and didn't want it if the oil is just going to exported:

Dinsdale, a bank owner who has never held office, had been a relatively distant third in a field of five, but he’s surging in the polls with his everyman persona. (He somehow is an “everyman” even though he loaned his campaign $1 million out of his pocket.) And he’s got an issue with Keystone XL.

When asked about the Keystone pipeline, Mr. Dinsdale said, “I wouldn’t want to live in Steele City,” a town 30 miles away that would be a connecting point for the pipeline between Canada and Oklahoma. He said he would only support the project if the oil shipped to Texas was not exported.

“I want it to stay in this country. Otherwise, I’m not for that pipeline,” he said. “I’m for it if it stays in North America, if that’s where it’s used.”

http://blogs.platts.com/2014/05/13/canada-oil-exports-keystonexl/#more-16838

[Suburbia]

In my opinion, the 114th Congress should focus on bigger goals than a pipeline. Work on a education plan to cut waste, fraud, do something about ISIS, tax cuts, and grow the economy with the private sector.

[Frodo]

TransCanada has just asked the State Department to pause its review of the project:

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/transcanada-state-department-keystone-215462

[Gass3268]

TransCanada has just asked the State Department to pause its review of the project:

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/transcanada-state-department-keystone-215462

It's dead!

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

TransCanada has just asked the State Department to pause its review of the project:

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/transcanada-state-department-keystone-215462

It's dead!

Until the price of oil goes back up again.  The way the oil market is at present, it makes perfect sense for TransCanada to do what it can to delay the start of construction without causing a permanent halt.

[Gass3268]

Obama rejects Keystone Pipeline

[Badger]

Why the heck would he do this in light of Trans Canada putting the project on indefinite hold as noted above? why not just simply announce that in light of Trans Canada's decision the decision here is on indefiite hold? why pick a fight over a materially moribund project?

[Blue3]

Picking a fight?

It's just the final nail in the coffin.

[Lexii, harbinger of chaos and sexual anarchy]

Why the heck would he do this in light of Trans Canada putting the project on indefinite hold as noted above? why not just simply announce that in light of Trans Canada's decision the decision here is on indefiite hold? why pick a fight over a materially moribund project?

Good publicity

[Ebsy]

Obama promised that he would decide to either accept or reject the pipeline this term and not put it off on his successor. Are we suddenly against Presidents keeping their word?

Anyway, he did this to ingratiate himself with the new Liberal government.

[Gass3268]

Why the heck would he do this in light of Trans Canada putting the project on indefinite hold as noted above? why not just simply announce that in light of Trans Canada's decision the decision here is on indefiite hold? why pick a fight over a materially moribund project?

Essentially if Trans Canada wants to bring the project back up in a more sympathetic administration, they would have to go through the environmental review process again because it would be considered a new project. This would mean new studies, public comments, and legal challenges. Meaning it would take years. So by Obama objecting to it, it either kills it for good or will require Trans Canada to have to go through the entire process again with new variables to deal with (NDP government in Alberta, Liberals in Ottawa, maybe an environmentally friendly Democrat defeats the Republican before the review is over and rejects it again). 

[Taco Truck 🚚]

Why the heck would he do this in light of Trans Canada putting the project on indefinite hold as noted above? why not just simply announce that in light of Trans Canada's decision the decision here is on indefiite hold? why pick a fight over a materially moribund project?

It's barn cleaning season.  Now Hilary doesn't have to deal with it on day one.  Mwahahaha!