Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
01-18-2012, 11:08 PM   #16
Veteran Member
wasser's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: northern ca
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 427
QuoteOriginally posted by redrockcoulee Quote
There had been a proposal to build a nuclear plant but not near Fort Mac. In fact it would have been just down the hill and in full view of my uncle's living room window. Or his former living room window as he sold the farm this past fall. The Keystone Pipeline would have started north of my brother-in law's farm (not real close but closest highway north of his place)

There are so many pros and cons of both the oils sands and pipeline/tankers that making simple statements is superficial at best. Sounds like the American decision was based on a lack of time allowed to study the pipeline proposal and its impacts. In the 70s there was a pipeline proposal to move Canadian and Alaskan oil and or gas down the Mackenzie Valley. Cannot remember the fellow's name that chaired the hearings but the pipeline was vetoed. A couple of years ago both that former chair and several of the groups that opposed the pipeline have publicly stated that they were no longer opposed to a pipeline being built there now. The difference is not that jobs are needed, the difference is improvements in both pipeline technology and construction in permafrost. IMHO the biggest problem with the oil sands is the current rush to develop them without building on learning from the plants just recently built in order to produce the product in a way that reduces energy consumption and has a smaller impact on the environment,. For example it has recently been shown that just setting the routes of access roads in a less straight line method greatly lessens the negative impact on woodland caribou. There really has not been a time for lessons learned to be even looked at up there nor was enough time to study the potential impacts on the land that the Keystone Pipeline would go through allowed. Such a rush for a product that is neither going anywhere nor is the demand disappearing.
Yup, you're right. It's all about the Republicans rushing this along:

(the following is quoted from the OP's link)
QuoteQuote:
Obama blames Republicans

A statement released by U.S. President Barack Obama put the blame on Congressional Republicans, who inserted a 60-day deadline for a decision on the pipeline in a December 2011 bill to continue U.S. payroll tax cuts.

"The rushed and arbitrary deadline insisted on by Congressional Republicans prevented a full assessment of the pipeline’s impact, especially the health and safety of the American people, as well as our environment," Obama said in the statement.

"This announcement is not a judgment on the merits of the pipeline, but the arbitrary nature of a deadline that prevented the State Department from gathering the information necessary to approve the project and protect the American people."
February 21, 2012 is just not enough time for a decision to be made...

However...the following statement was released by President Obama's own State Department, which is headed by Hilary Clinton. Note the dates.

QuoteQuote:
Keystone XL Final Environmental Impact Statement Released; Public Meetings Set

Media Note
Office of the Spokesperson
Washington, DC
August 26, 2011

The U.S. Department of State is releasing the final version of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed Keystone XL oil pipeline project today.

The final EIS does not represent a decision on TransCanada’s permit application to build a 1,700-mile oil pipeline from Alberta, Canada to the Gulf Coast. Rather, the final EIS is an environmental and safety analysis of the proposed project, developed to inform the decision. The data in the EIS will be used along with additional input to determine whether the Keystone XL project is in the national interest.

The Department will now begin a 90-day consultation period with eight cooperating federal agencies before making a decision on the Presidential Permit.
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2011/08/171082.htm

That was August 26, 2011. Adding 90 days that puts their own deadline on November 24, 2011. Pushing this out to February 21 is nearly double the time (at 179 days it's actually one day short) the Department of State arbitrarily imposed upon themselves.

01-18-2012, 11:47 PM   #17
Veteran Member
Chex's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: The 'Stoke, British Columbia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,678
From what I've heard from people up north, it will be a cold day in hell when the pipeline (which all pipelines have leaks and environmental damage effects) gets through from Alberta to the BC coast and stays open.. they've already had some bombings up there and word from northern communities is that it won't stop anytime soon. I believe that Canada should simply refine our own damn oil and be done with it.
01-19-2012, 04:16 AM   #18
Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Wheatfield's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The wheatfields of Canada
Posts: 15,903
QuoteOriginally posted by Chex Quote
From what I've heard from people up north, it will be a cold day in hell when the pipeline (which all pipelines have leaks and environmental damage effects) gets through from Alberta to the BC coast and stays open.. they've already had some bombings up there and word from northern communities is that it won't stop anytime soon. I believe that Canada should simply refine our own damn oil and be done with it.
I've never been able to figure out why a refinery isn't built north of Edmonton. I suspect it's because the oil companies want to keep using the super refineries in Texas and pipe the crude to them. It would make more sense for us to value add the oil and then sell the finished product.
01-19-2012, 06:36 AM   #19
Banned




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Millstone,NJ
Posts: 6,491
Keystone Pipeline: Winners and Losers

QuoteQuote:
President Barack H. Obama rejected Wednesday a request to give TransCanada (TRP) a permit to build a pipeline that would transport its oil sands from Calgary to the Gulf of Mexico. That decision will create winners and losers.

It’s hard to get the facts on the Keystone XL Pipeline project. According to Bloomberg, TransCanada claims that the 1,661-mile project would “carry 700,000 barrels of crude a day from Alberta’s oil sands to refineries on the U.S. Gulf of Mexico coast, crossing six states and creating an estimated 20,000 jobs.”

Other sources suggest far fewer jobs. For example, the State Department’s report to Congress used labor expenses from TransCanada’s application to estimate that the Keystone Pipeline would create between 5,000 and 6,000 construction jobs for two years. And a Cornell University study estimated that the project will create “only 2,500 to 4,650 temporary construction jobs,” according to CNBC.

So who are the winners from Obama’s decision? Here are four:

•President Obama. Obama made a wise political calculation that the loss of support from environmentalists who opposed the pipeline would be more costly in November than the political vitriol he will face from the Republican side. After all, if he had approved the Keystone Pipeline, his opponents would simply come up with more venom to spew in his direction.
•Alternative oil sands transport channels. Andrew Lipow of Lipow Oil Associates in Houston told CNBC that there is another pipeline — run by Enbridge Energy Management (EEQ) – that could be expanded to handle the work without a permit. Moreover, railroads — such as Berkshire Hathaway’s (BRK.A) Burlington Northern, Canadian National (CNI) and Union Pacific (UNP) – can haul the tar sands oil that does not go through pipelines.
•TransCanada shareholders. Goldman Sachs (GS) estimates that if TransCanada, which has already invested $1.9 billion in the project according to Business News Network, canceled the project; its EPS in 2012 and 2013 would rise between 5% and 10% due to a reduction in TransCanada’s capital expenditures and financial costs.
•Nebraska politicians and environmentalists. According to the Washington Post, Nebraska politicians and environmentalists opposed the project due to their claim that the TransCanada route ”might threaten the state’s ecologically sensitive Sand Hills region.” Delaying the pipeline is a win for them — albeit a temporary one if the proposal is approved in 2013.
The losers from the delayed permit are on the other side politically. These include:

•Republican leaders. House Speaker John Boehner, R.-Ohio, is naturally outraged by the decision and vowed that his side would keep fighting for the Keystone pipeline since it’s ”good for the U.S. economy because it would create thousands of jobs,” according to CNBC. The key error by Republicans was their decision to use the Keystone Pipeline decision as an anti-Obama battering ram mandating that the Department of State make a decision by February 21.
•Canada. Most likely, the delay in the approval for the pipeline has caused political angst for politicians in Calgary and nationally. This was expressed by Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper who CNBC reports told Obama he was “profoundly disappointed” by the decision.
As for the few thousand construction workers who would not get those temporary jobs, some might be able to find work helping Enbridge expand its pipeline network.

It looks to me like that Keystone Pipeline is a bad financial and political investment. Let’s hope the delay leads to its cancellation.
Keystone Pipeline: Winners and Losers - Forbes

01-19-2012, 06:45 AM   #20
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
boriscleto's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: North Syracuse, NY
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,464
This pipeline is still going to go through, it just has to wait until after the election. Obama could not afford to approve this before November. It is universally unpopular among his base and wouldn't get him a single vote from the right. If he had approved it he would have been attacked from both sides, by delaying it he will only get attacked from the right, which was going to attack him no matter what.
01-19-2012, 07:45 AM   #21
Inactive Account




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: New Orleans
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,053
QuoteOriginally posted by wasser Quote
How does this slow Canada's exploitation? If we're talking about construction of a pipeline through the U.S. then that would seem to be slower then one to the West Coast of Canada. And isn't there already at least some infrastructure for this oil to go west? The oil must be going somewhere now.
The bottleneck for expanding production now is bringing the product to market that is why not building this pipeline will slow expansion of the oil sands projects.

QuoteOriginally posted by Wheatfield Quote
your dislike of Canada.
Get over it.
I have no problem with canada other than your horrible tasting beer, your geese, your quarters, and hockey which is just a dull version of soccer on ice. I like the whiskey, the bacon, and the maple syrup.

QuoteOriginally posted by Wheatfield Quote
It's not unusual for Mike to not think things through.
Says the guy whose plans to clean up the tar sands are to build a nuclear reactor and refineries. The oil & gas industry doesn't build nuclear power plants, wind farms, solar power plants, or coal fired power plants to generate power, they use the byproducts of oil and gas extraction like excess gas and petroleum coke. If the canadian government builds a nuke and oil prices collapse for a couple decades like the 1980s and 1990s the tar sands will be one of the first places to shut in production so the canadian government and tax payers will be holding the bag for a remote nuclear power plant. Besides, oil sand production is water intensive enough without adding a nuclear power plant into the mix.

QuoteOriginally posted by boriscleto Quote
That would be expensive...shipping that oil all the way around the Cape Horn. A Super-Tanker can't fit through the Panama canal.
They could always ship it to the west coast of the US and refine it in California.
01-19-2012, 07:53 AM   #22
Veteran Member
SteveM's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Vancouver Island, BC, Canada
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,294
QuoteOriginally posted by boriscleto Quote
This pipeline is still going to go through, it just has to wait until after the election. Obama could not afford to approve this before November. It is universally unpopular among his base and wouldn't get him a single vote from the right. If he had approved it he would have been attacked from both sides, by delaying it he will only get attacked from the right, which was going to attack him no matter what.
+1

White House kills Keystone pipeline plan, but open to new route

QuoteQuote:
Obama, in a statement, blamed Republicans for killing the pipeline.

"The rushed and arbitrary deadline insisted on by Congressional Republicans prevented a full assessment of the pipeline's impact, especially the health and safety of the American people, as well as our environment," Obama said.

"This announcement is not a judgment on the merits of the pipeline, but the arbitrary nature of a deadline that prevented the State Department from gathering the information necessary to approve the project and protect the American people."

The U.S. president called Prime Minister Stephen Harper to relay the news, telling him TransCanada was free to re-apply. Harper reacted "with profound disappointment," his office said in a statement.

Alberta Premier Alison Redford said the U.S. ruling confirms the need for the province to focus on diversification of export markets for oilsands crude "with a clear aim" to the Asia-Pacific region.

"Today's decision does not mean that America will consume one less barrel of oil," Redford said. "What it means is this: America will continue to import oil from jurisdictions with much weaker environmental policies and who do not share the same values as Canadians and Americans."



Oil to China is a real possibility but it isn't a slam dunk either. BC is a stronghold of environmental activism, Greenpeace being one of the movements that was founded here.

It's also not particularly popular in BC as there really isn't anything to benefit BC, except pipeline leaks and tanker disasters. There would be very few jobs resulting from the pipeline in BC....

QuoteQuote:
Between 75-80% of British Columbians are opposed to this project, according to multiple polls dating back to 2005. The Union of B.C. Municipalities is opposed, as are over hundreds of fishing organizations, tourism associations, and coastal businesses. There is increasing international concern over the affects of the Northern Gateway project on B.C.’s Great Bear Rainforest.


01-24-2012, 01:44 PM   #23
Veteran Member
Chex's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: The 'Stoke, British Columbia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,678
QuoteOriginally posted by mikemike Quote
I have no problem with canada other than your horrible tasting beer, your geese, your quarters, and hockey which is just a dull version of soccer on ice. I like the whiskey, the bacon, and the maple syrup.
Nothing wrong with our non-watered down beer. Hell some of our smaller breweries are amazing! It's so called national brand of Molson Canadian that is a F'n pathetic excuse for a beer... odd how Molson is now owned by an American company. But beer is just beer... at least up here everywhere you go they know how to make a Ceaser... and not with tomato juice either.
01-24-2012, 03:47 PM - 1 Like   #24
Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Wheatfield's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The wheatfields of Canada
Posts: 15,903
QuoteOriginally posted by Chex Quote
Nothing wrong with our non-watered down beer. Hell some of our smaller breweries are amazing! It's so called national brand of Molson Canadian that is a F'n pathetic excuse for a beer... odd how Molson is now owned by an American company. But beer is just beer... at least up here everywhere you go they know how to make a Ceaser... and not with tomato juice either.
Don't worry about Mike. He's a professional hater. He doesn't really have a clue about what he is talking about.
01-25-2012, 02:09 PM   #25
Veteran Member
Chex's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: The 'Stoke, British Columbia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,678
Well being a hater and refusing common sense is a bad combo Why would one choose to live below sea level.. to me that just seems to be asking to try natural selection on a daily basis.
01-25-2012, 03:58 PM   #26
Inactive Account




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: New Orleans
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,053
QuoteOriginally posted by Chex Quote
Well being a hater and refusing common sense is a bad combo Why would one choose to live below sea level.. to me that just seems to be asking to try natural selection on a daily basis.
The area of New Orleans has been permanently inhabited by humans for over 3000 years and it is no less hospitable than most parts of Canada.

To be fair though, I don't mind bleue and I do like moosehead.
01-25-2012, 10:39 PM   #27
Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Wheatfield's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The wheatfields of Canada
Posts: 15,903
QuoteOriginally posted by mikemike Quote
Says the guy whose plans to clean up the tar sands are to build a nuclear reactor and refineries. The oil & gas industry doesn't build nuclear power plants, wind farms, solar power plants, or coal fired power plants to generate power, they use the byproducts of oil and gas extraction like excess gas and petroleum coke. If the canadian government builds a nuke and oil prices collapse for a couple decades like the 1980s and 1990s the tar sands will be one of the first places to shut in production so the canadian government and tax payers will be holding the bag for a remote nuclear power plant. Besides, oil sand production is water intensive enough without adding a nuclear power plant into the mix.
All of the electricity where I live comes from coal powered generating plants. Build a nuke, and we can stop burning coal. I'm not seeing this as a bad thing. I'm not seeing oil prices collapsing ever at this point. Even if the USA sinks into the slag beneath it and disappears forever, there are too many burgeoning economies in the world whose appetite for the stuff is insatiable.
Water, BTW, is something we have in abundance up here. Look at a map sometime.
01-26-2012, 09:39 AM   #28
Veteran Member
SteveM's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Vancouver Island, BC, Canada
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,294
QuoteQuote:
PetroChina has just taken full control of the Mackay River oil sands development, which is expected to eventually produce 150,000 barrels a day after coming on line in 2014, while Chinese statecontrolled Sinopec recently bought a nine per cent stake in Syncrude, the oilsands' largest consortium, for $4.6 billion. The Asia Times says China invested $15 billion in the Alberta oil patch in 2010 alone.

China's investors want that oil shipped to Asia from Enbridge's proposed Northern Gateway pipeline to Kitimat, as opposed to being pumped to our traditional U.S. market via existing routes or the proposed Keystone pipeline recently shelved, if only temporarily, by Barack Obama.

This alarms the United States. Even Harper fan Newt Gingrich, the American right's favourite philanderer, warned in his victory speech after the South Carolina primary Saturday that the prime minister is "going to cut a deal with the Chinese and they'll build a pipeline straight across the Rockies to Vancouver."

While showing his grasp of geography is every bit as firm as Sarah Palin's, Gingrich did get to the heart of the matter: why send Canada's oil to Asia via Kitimat, adding the risk that comes with shipping it through tricky coastal waters by tanker, when we can pipe it to the U.S. instead?

Because it's not Canadian money driving this decision.

Read more: Oil policy turning good guy Canada into global bad boy
01-26-2012, 10:39 AM   #29
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
boriscleto's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: North Syracuse, NY
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,464
This makes Keystone seem responsible.

Daily Kos: Pretty much the dumbest idea ever
01-26-2012, 02:14 PM   #30
Veteran Member
Chex's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: The 'Stoke, British Columbia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,678
QuoteOriginally posted by Wheatfield Quote
All of the electricity where I live comes from coal powered generating plants. Build a nuke, and we can stop burning coal. I'm not seeing this as a bad thing. I'm not seeing oil prices collapsing ever at this point. Even if the USA sinks into the slag beneath it and disappears forever, there are too many burgeoning economies in the world whose appetite for the stuff is insatiable.
Water, BTW, is something we have in abundance up here. Look at a map sometime.
Nuclear Power in the prairies makes sense to me as well, my only fear is that even though an incident is highly unlikely.. if it did ever happen, there is nothing to stop the prevailing winds from spreading the damage to a much wider space than if it was in a more secluded mountainous area.. just build it by the US boarder so the damage could be shared

Our water will slowly become contaminated as they continue to allow frac'ing to extract the oil and disrupt the water tables.. Pretty soon if you don't get it from fresh run off, you won't want to drink it until it's run through a very expensive filtration unit.. places in Texas are "told" by experts that their water is fine.. it looks cloudy and white, I sure as hell wouldn't drink it. Toxicity levels shown in people are those of people who have EATEN mothballs and smoke about a pack a day.. yet they refused to study any children.. experts would never have a reason to why the kids toxicity levels were that high, easier to just not test them.

I think that in the near future the prairies will play a major part of supplying Canada and others with BioDiesel
This was an interesting video that was shared on FB and I've already put it up on G+ as well about hemp and pot
I wonder when the realization will hit the high end of the world powers.. when they stop letting big business run the country I guess.

Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
cbc, department, government, keystone, pipeline, proposal, statement, u.s, xl
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Keystone XL mikemike General Talk 9 12-21-2011 07:41 AM
Sports Surfing at Pipeline, Hawaii on 12/8/2010 HawaiianOnline Post Your Photos! 14 02-02-2011 08:01 AM
Sports Surfing at Pipeline, Hawaii on 1/29/11 HawaiianOnline Post Your Photos! 9 02-01-2011 09:21 PM
Pentax K200 photo on CBC Radio neldiogo General Talk 4 02-28-2010 08:07 PM
pef files rejected by Lightroom but dng ok Squeeze Pentax DSLR Discussion 5 02-24-2010 05:06 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:02 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top