Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Canada scrambles to save Keystone XL pipeline


Recommended Posts

Canada scrambles to save Keystone XL pipeline

Canada is threatening to take legal action if U.S. President-elect Joe Biden goes ahead with a move to cancel the Keystone XL pipeline.

Scrapping the multibillion-dollar project would threaten jobs in Alberta - Canada's main oil-producing province.

A source told Reuters on Sunday that Biden will cancel a permit for the project over concerns about fossil fuels contributing to climate change

Alberta's Premier, Jason Kenney, said on Monday Biden's decision could hurt U.S.-Canada relations.

He's urged Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to reach out to Biden before he's inaugurated on Wednesday.

"That would be, in our view, that would be a serious economic and strategic error that would set back Canada, U.S. relations with the United State's most important trading partner, and strategic ally: Canada."

Kenney further threatened to seek damages for breaking global free trade agreements.

He said Alberta has invested over $780 million in the project since last year and construction of the pipeline is well underway.

The project faces fierce opposition from U.S. landowners, Native American tribes and environmentalists, but Kenney said the project can address broader climate issues and is mutually beneficial.

*****************************************

Sorry, but we have to save the planet from global warming so no pipeline, especially since Canada believes in the scam. You can't have it both ways.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

This is like saying all of America scrambles to save some pipeline in Texas.  Would people in New York or other densely populated centres really want to go that far?

Alberta is Canada's version of Texas.  Of course, they wish for the oils deals to go through but as for the rest of Canada ...  ?

The energy company in Canada associated with Keystone is already making other plans.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Bogie56 said:

This is like saying all of America scrambles to save some pipeline in Texas.  Would people in New York or other densely populated centres really want to go that far?

Alberta is Canada's version of Texas.  Of course, they wish for the oils deals to go through but as for the rest of Canada ...  ?

The energy company in Canada associated with Keystone is already making other plans.

Trudeau is upset over the possible revocation of the permits.  I'm sure the majority of Canadian government is upset as well.  Of course, it is more than just the fossil fuel damage to environment.  It is also the threats to the United States so Canada and Big Oil can make money. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Albertans will be upset by Biden's action, of course, but, as an Ontarian, while I understand Trudeau pushing the pipeline for reasons of employment, I'm pleased Biden killed it for the sake of the environment.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, cigarjoe said:

And they can ship it by rail like they do the bakken shale oil from  eastern Montana and North Dakota. ore RR jobs!!!

 

Canada's Rail companies have done very well and this is a big reason why.  My shares in CN have quadrupled in 10 years.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, TomJH said:

Albertans will be upset by Biden's action, of course, but, as an Ontarian, while I understand Trudeau pushing the pipeline for reasons of employment, I'm pleased Biden killed it for the sake of the environment.

Isn't Alberta where all (or most of) the Canadian cults are?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, hamradio said:

Canada could always build a pipeline to the ocean then ship it by tanker.

 

There are pipelines in Canada.  I think the idea with Keystone was to supply America and pipe the oil to her refineries.

I said in as another thread, it's not as if the oil is going to go bad.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Swithin said:

Isn't Alberta where all (or most of) the Canadian cults are?  

Maybe so.  The most notorious one that I was aware of was a Quebecois man who thought he was Jesus and had many many wives.  They made a movie about him but I cannot recall the title right now.  I find it interesting that the cult leaders who model themselves on Jesus are also so randy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Keystone is/was a big project.  Much of it already exists and is operating.  The controversial part is Phase 4, or Keystone XL, which cuts across AB, SK, MT, SD, and NE to join previous phases of the Keystone pipeline.  It delivers oil to the main US oil tank storage facility in Cushing, OK, and then further to refineries on the TX gulf coast.

Keystone XL is a more direct route, and has a larger capacity than the existing Keystone pipeline system.  It also had the benefit of being able to transport oil from the Bakken formation in MT and ND, as the original Keystone pipeline route bypasses this region.

Cancelling XL doesn't prevent Alberta oil from reaching Texas refineries via pipelines.  It makes it less efficient.

 

  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

TC Energy is cutting about 1,000 construction jobs.

For Alberta it seems to be about making more money for corporations.  There are probably a lot of Canadians who are equally concerned about the environment than are concerned about making corporations richer.

Edited by Bogie56
new information
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there is too much "black and white".   "it's either this or that"  discussion around fossil fuels.  There seems to be no middle ground.

I am an environmentalist, I belong to an environmental organization in the city where I live. I want to make that clear.  However, I believe there is too much of an "all or nothing,  fossil fuels bad no matter what" kind of attitude these days, obviously because of a justifiable and very real concern around climate change.  It seems to me that most of the big oil companies, for their own survival as much as anything else,  are researching - with some success -  ways to make their product less harmful to the environment.  This includes multiple safety measures they've integrated into their pipelines, with strict enforceable rules around how they're built and what kind of safeguards they've made to prevent accidents.

It's ironic that some of the same people who oppose pipelines seem to feel ok about the transport of oil product via rail.  If a train carrying oil has an accident, the repercussions are at least as serious as with a pipeline spill.  

I do support the  cessation of the use of fossil fuel products, but I think it should and can be done gradually and carefully.  I also believe the companies that use oil pipelines are extremely circumspect as to their safety and environmental impact .

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, misswonderly3 said:

I think there is too much "black and white".   "it's either this or that"  discussion around fossil fuels.  There seems to be no middle ground.

I am an environmentalist, I belong to an environmental organization in the city where I live. I want to make that clear.  However, I believe there is too much of an "all or nothing,  fossil fuels bad no matter what" kind of attitude these days, obviously because of a justifiable and very real concern around climate change.  It seems to me that most of the big oil companies, for their own survival as much as anything else,  are researching - with some success -  ways to make their product less harmful to the environment.  This includes multiple safety measures they've integrated into their pipelines, with strict enforceable rules around how they're built and what kind of safeguards they've made to prevent accidents.

It's ironic that some of the same people who oppose pipelines seem to feel ok about the transport of oil product via rail.  If a train carrying oil has an accident, the repercussions are at least as serious as with a pipeline spill.  

I do support the  cessation of the use of fossil fuel products, but I think it should and can be done gradually and carefully.  I also believe the companies that use oil pipelines are extremely circumspect as to their safety and environmental impact .

I tend to agree but I think that part of the problem is that the pipeline is scheduled to run through Native lands and they don't like that.  So it is a multifaceted problem and difficult to please everyone..

I take Sansfin's point (above) as well.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the problems with Keystone is that it's purpose is to transport Canadian oil to the US Gulf coast going through supposedly protected Native-American lands.  Also, it comes dangerously close to American towns, recreation areas and other places.  Pipelines are more subject to earthquake damage and this is a factor for Keystone.  Canada could have built it to their west coast, but they are too cheap.

While pipelines technically may be more secure than railroads, that is not always the case.  I live near one of the major pipelines going from Southwest US to New England area.  Several years ago it broke and they are still having to try and clean up the mess.  The oil leaks out unseen and seeps into the water tables underneath.  These water tables feed into nearby streams and rivers that are the sources of drinking water for millions of people.

Trains are bad for transporting oil, but at least you can see when one wreaks and begin immediate containment.  With pipelines, the warning systems are often much delayed.

It is not about the environment of fossil fuels, but where the pipeline is running through America.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, SansFin said:

The Keystone XL pipeline is the most environmentally-friendly option.

For Canada more so, than the USA (as Cid articulated).    While the refineries on the USA's south-east coast have a lot higher capacity then Canada's west coast,  the USA south-east coast is subject to major hurricanes and other potential environmental concerns.     So I have always felt the pipeline should have been to Canada's west coast.

But that being said,   since the pipeline was approved and work has been done,  I don't know if it is wise to reserve the decisions that were already made.

   

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

For Canada more so, than the USA (as Cid articulated).    While the refineries on the USA's south-east coast have a lot higher capacity then Canada's west coast,  the USA south-east coast is subject to major hurricanes and other potential environmental concerns.     So I have always felt the pipeline should have been to Canada's west coast.

But that being said,   since the pipeline was approved and work has been done,  I don't know if it is wise to reserve the decisions that were already made.

   

Welcome to the world of American politics.  If Trump had not callously pushed it through, Biden would not have to reverse it.  Same as will all the other bad/evil things that Trump did.  Same as with the wall.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, ElCid said:

One of the problems with Keystone is that it's purpose is to transport Canadian oil to the US Gulf coast going through supposedly protected Native-American lands.  Also, it comes dangerously close to American towns, recreation areas and other places.  Pipelines are more subject to earthquake damage and this is a factor for Keystone.  Canada could have built it to their west coast, but they are too cheap.

While pipelines technically may be more secure than railroads, that is not always the case.  I live near one of the major pipelines going from Southwest US to New England area.  Several years ago it broke and they are still having to try and clean up the mess.  The oil leaks out unseen and seeps into the water tables underneath.  These water tables feed into nearby streams and rivers that are the sources of drinking water for millions of people.

Trains are bad for transporting oil, but at least you can see when one wreaks and begin immediate containment.  With pipelines, the warning systems are often much delayed.

It is not about the environment of fossil fuels, but where the pipeline is running through America.

Cheapness has nothing to do with it.  Keystone pipelines face more opposition in Canada than they did in the U.S.  There  was a plan to go to the refineries on the east coast but that too was a pipe dream due to immense opposition.

The irony is Keystone thought this would be easier to get past the Americans as they tend not to be so concerned about the environment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The other thing about Canada shipping to the West Coast is that there is opposition from the Native peoples to allowing tankers into the coastal waters.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Biden and Trudeau plan next bilateral confab in reset of Canada-U.S. relations

Biden and Trudeau discussed Covid-19, Keystone XL, climate change and other subjects during the more than 30-minute conversation.

(1-22-21)

 

......

OTTAWA — President Joe Biden and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau have agreed to meet again next month — virtually or in person — as Canada and the U.S. begin to reset relations, two senior government officials familiar with their Friday evening conversation told POLITICO.

Canada is traditionally the first stop for a newly inaugurated American president. Since White House spokesperson Jen Psaki said Friday that "it will be a bit of time" before Biden embarks on foreign travel given the pandemic, it's a point of pride in Ottawa that Trudeau was the first world leader to take his call......

Biden and Trudeau discussed Covid-19, Keystone XL, climate change and other subjects during the more than 30-minute conversation.

 
 

Trudeau expressed disappointment with Biden's decision to rescind Keystone XL's cross-border permit, the officials said, adding that Biden acknowledged it was a blow to Canada but underscored that it was his campaign commitment.

Earlier Friday, Trudeau said he intended to speak to Biden about the effect of the Keystone move on Canadian jobs. But he indicated he would not fight with Biden on the matter, noting that Canadians and the new administration are "much more aligned on values" than the previous one. He and other federal officials have said they "respect" Biden's decision.....

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/22/biden-trudeau-us-canada-relations-461543

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/22/2021 at 10:14 AM, ElCid said:

[...]

While pipelines technically may be more secure than railroads, that is not always the case.  I live near one of the major pipelines going from Southwest US to New England area.  Several years ago it broke and they are still having to try and clean up the mess.  The oil leaks out unseen and seeps into the water tables underneath.  These water tables feed into nearby streams and rivers that are the sources of drinking water for millions of people.

Trains are bad for transporting oil, but at least you can see when one wreaks and begin immediate containment.  With pipelines, the warning systems are often much delayed.

 

[Comment removed because facts from a person knowledgeable about current technology are deemed worthless in light of anecdotes someone once heard.]

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, SansFin said:

I am sorry to have to inform you that your information is woefully outdated. Routing, construction and detection systems have improved remarkably in recent decades. The scenario of leaks many years ago has no validity when discussing new pipeline.

I am sorry to inform you but your information is biased.  While there have been improvements, the danger of pipelines leaking is still present.  The leak I referred to is still a problem and ongoing remediation of the land around it and monitoring of groundwater at the site and along the rivers.

It was not "decades" ago, but within the last 7 or 8.  It was not the only leak by a pipeline within a four county area.  One went under a river and began leaking directly into the river.  That river is a source of drinking water for thousands.  Within the past 10 or so years.

It may be a "new" pipeline, but it still can have leaks as it ages, especially if it is in areas prone to earthquakes and Keystone is.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
© 2021 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...