[jolepp]

The U.S. government has denied an application by TransCanada to build the Keystone XL pipeline, the State Department announced Wednesday.

A statement released by the department says it doesn't preclude TransCanada applying again with a different route.

The Canadian government wanted to see the pipeline go ahead.

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.
...

Keystone XL pipeline proposal rejected - Canada - CBC News

[Wheatfield]

What will happen now is the Chinese will come in and build a pipeline from Alberta to the BC coast to transport oil to tankers going to China. China has already bought one of the oil sands projects in Alberta, it's pretty likely that they will want the oil from their project.
The real loser here is the USA.

[boriscleto]

What will happen now is the Chinese will come in and build a pipeline from Alberta to the BC coast to transport oil to tankers going to China. China has already bought one of the oil sands projects in Alberta, it's pretty likely that they will want the oil from their project.
The real loser here is the USA.

No, the US oil refiners are the losers. Most of the oil being imported to the US is being exported as refined oil products.

[SteveM]

What will happen now is the Chinese will come in and build a pipeline from Alberta to the BC coast to transport oil to tankers going to China. China has already bought one of the oil sands projects in Alberta, it's pretty likely that they will want the oil from their project.
The real loser here is the USA.

Huge fight going on in BC about allowing tankers on the west coast. I think this why Ottawa rejigged healthcare funding to ignore age when deciding funding amounts. Huge windfall for Alberta which gives it some money to use when speaking to BC. Alberta gets its pipeline and BC gets cash which it already had.

---

Last edited by SteveM; 01-18-2012 at 04:41 PM.

[mikemike]

Good for them, gas is cheap and tar sands are dirty. Expensive oil is the biggest motivator for energy efficiency so this is great news.

[Ratmagiclady]

What will happen now is the Chinese will come in and build a pipeline from Alberta to the BC coast to transport oil to tankers going to China. China has already bought one of the oil sands projects in Alberta, it's pretty likely that they will want the oil from their project.
The real loser here is the USA.

Dubiousness of dirty oil actually benefitting us, especially in light of this being mostly a benefit to the refiners, one wonders if the US should want to run a pipeline to something that looks like Mordor all the way across the country to begin with, never mind be party to that.

[Wheatfield]

Dubiousness of dirty oil actually benefitting us, especially in light of this being mostly a benefit to the refiners, one wonders if the US should want to run a pipeline to something that looks like Mordor all the way across the country to begin with, never mind be party to that.

Check out a North Dakota strip coal mine sometime.
The oil sands don't look that much different.
Strip mining isn't pretty, no matter what you are taking out.
What we need to do though is build a nuclear reactor to produce the power needed to crack the oil out. Right now we are burning huge amounts of natural gas to do it, which is making the oil sands very inefficient.

[mikemike]

By that logic, police shouldn't waste there time looking for rapists because murders are much worse bad guys. Coal's problems don't make tar sands okay.

Besides, once they build the pipeline to the pacific coast and load the oil to the tankers, they can still ship that tar sands to US ports it will just be a little more expensive if it comes via tanker instead of via pipeline. Win-win for the US, the only one who loses is canada because they won't be able to exploit this resource as fast.

[wasser]

By that logic, police shouldn't waste there time looking for rapists because murders are much worse bad guys. Coal's problems don't make tar sands okay.

Besides, once they build the pipeline to the pacific coast and load the oil to the tankers, they can still ship that tar sands to US ports it will just be a little more expensive if it comes via tanker instead of via pipeline. Win-win for the US, the only one who loses is canada because they won't be able to exploit this resource as fast.

And, in the event of an oil spill, the environment. Tankers are, I believe, less reliable transport than pipelines.

[boriscleto]

Besides, once they build the pipeline to the pacific coast and load the oil to the tankers, they can still ship that tar sands to US ports it will just be a little more expensive if it comes via tanker instead of via pipeline. Win-win for the US, the only one who loses is canada because they won't be able to exploit this resource as fast.

That would be expensive...shipping that oil all the way around the Cape Horn. A Super-Tanker can't fit through the Panama canal.

[Wheatfield]

By that logic, police shouldn't waste there time looking for rapists because murders are much worse bad guys. Coal's problems don't make tar sands okay.

You aren't making a logical comparison.

Besides, once they build the pipeline to the pacific coast and load the oil to the tankers, they can still ship that tar sands to US ports it will just be a little more expensive if it comes via tanker instead of via pipeline. Win-win for the US, the only one who loses is canada because they won't be able to exploit this resource as fast.

Any pipeline from Alberta to the BC coast will be financed, at least in part, by China. Unless the Keystone goes ahead, the USA is out of the game as far as this particular resource goes. Perhaps you missed the part about China already having bought into the oilsands in a big way.
They want this resource, apparently more than the USA does. Canada is in a very good position, your assertion that Canadas loses is based on nothing more than wishful thinking and your dislike of Canada.
Get over it.
Any port serving the Northern Gateway Pipeline will be serving Chinese supertankers exclusively, the USA will be out of the picture entirely.

That would be expensive...shipping that oil all the way around the Cape Horn. A Super-Tanker can't fit through the Panama canal.

It's not unusual for Mike to not think things through.

[wasser]

By that logic, police shouldn't waste there time looking for rapists because murders are much worse bad guys. Coal's problems don't make tar sands okay.

Besides, once they build the pipeline to the pacific coast and load the oil to the tankers, they can still ship that tar sands to US ports it will just be a little more expensive if it comes via tanker instead of via pipeline. Win-win for the US, the only one who loses is canada because they won't be able to exploit this resource as fast.

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.

And I'm not convinced the Keystone pipeline would change much of anything price wise for the consumer. Canadian oil going to China just means less Chinese pressure on other sources of oil. This seems to me more about the source. And I think it beneficial to all that we get more of our oil from friendly countries than ones that aren't.

[wasser]

It's not unusual for Mike to not think things through.

Actually though...

Good for them, gas is cheap and tar sands are dirty. Expensive oil is the biggest motivator for energy efficiency so this is great news.

He's just happy it'll cost more. However, as I posted above. I'm not convinced this changes the price of anything really. Oil prices are global.

[redrockcoulee]

Check out a North Dakota strip coal mine sometime.
The oil sands don't look that much different.
Strip mining isn't pretty, no matter what you are taking out.
What we need to do though is build a nuclear reactor to produce the power needed to crack the oil out. Right now we are burning huge amounts of natural gas to do it, which is making the oil sands very inefficient.

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.

[jolepp]

... Such a rush for a product that is neither going anywhere nor is the demand disappearing.

Demand for oil is growing while supply is dwindling, that is, price is going up, so rush would not seem to make sense (from the seller's point of view). (?)