[Peter Zack]

What's with Americans blocking attempts to build trans USA-Canada oil pipelines? The latest battle is in Texas of all places with people trying to block the construction of the TC pipeline. The last was the Keystone pipeline being blocked.

The USA allows Venezuela (a political enemy and closely associated with Cuba) to sell oil in the US. Same with the Saudi's and we all know how well that friendship has been at times. In fact Venezuela have an oil price undercutting program in the US for people in low incomes. China and India steal jobs daily and undercut American made products. They steal copyrights of all kinds to copy western ideas and nearly nothing is done or said. Car companies move to Mexico. Canada wants to sell to the US and all this stink? I don't get it.

Were not stealing jobs, not closing a factory and moving it. The USA wants oil and we have it. Plus there are serious jobs on the table for Americans.

A pipeline is far far safer, not to mention the environmental costs of tankers or trucks to move it (anyone remember the Exxon Valdez?). This pipeline would replace 50,000 trucks a day. Yes a DAY for the volume it will move and that environmental cost can't be ignored.

I'm 100% in favour of getting off oil and doing what we can to change energy use and policies. Unfortunately we're far from that and still addicted to cars and trucks. Someday things will be electronic and powered from wind, sun, hydro etc. Let's hope it happens sooner rather than later.

[GeneV]

This has been discussed in many threads. However, first, the comparison with Venezuela and Saudi Arabia is inappropriate. If any of that oil were piped over the nations largest aquifer (which serves much of the country's food supply), I think you would see the same concerns and opposition. Second, there is concern that the oil being sent over the pipeline may not save any shipping in the U.S. at all. It is going to refineries on the Gulf Coast which may then ship it out to China (as a Cornell study has shown most likely), or, perhaps, back up into pipelines or into trucks in the U.S. Third, the project has not been prohibited, but has been delayed for more study into its safety. It is not at all clear that it is safer than trucking, if trucking is even an option.

[Parallax]

What's with Americans blocking attempts to build trans USA-Canada oil pipelines?

The problem is called. (Congress). For those of you who aren't familiar with it, it's a large governing body whose members' primary goal is to get reelected every 4 or 6 years; and it takes a lot of money to get reelected.
I'm not sure where it's coming from in this case, but I have to assume that the majority (of politicians) foresees larger bank accounts without the pipeline, than with it.
I have seen a few polls that show the people to favor it by a substantial margin.

[GeneV]

The problem is called. (Congress). For those of you who aren't familiar with it, it's a large governing body whose members' primary goal is to get reelected every 4 or 6 years; and it takes a lot of money to get reelected.
I'm not sure where it's coming from in this case, but I have to assume that the majority (of politicians) foresees larger bank accounts without the pipeline, than with it.
I have seen a few polls that show the people to favor it by a substantial margin.

Not in Nebraska. It is also more a question of routing and double-checking than prohibiting the pipeline. http://articles.latimes.com/2012/apr/19/nation/la-na-nn-keystone-nebraska-20120419

I suspect there is more money for re-election in supporting the pipeline which will make lots of money for the oil companies who refine and sell to China. The Koch brothers are big winners from the pipeline.

---

Last edited by GeneV; 06-22-2012 at 05:58 AM.

[Peter Zack]

I posted this to get an American perspective because I honestly don't know what all the local or regional issues are. All we hear here is, how much opposition there is to this and not really the reasons why. It sounds like the old Soviet Union is about to invade from what is reported. Protests in Washington. People barricading their properties, etc.

I understand the concerns over personal property rights and also water safety. I wouldn't want one of these things running under my backyard either. That makes total sense. There was a case on the news last night where some guy from Texas took the money offered by TC to run a section through his Texas property and now he's using that same money to fight the pipeline. He's even been arrested in DC over his protesting.

[mikemike]

There are a lot of different factors but I guess the two most important to consider in the context of the three nations you mentioned are NIMBY attitudes, the fact that environmentalists are adept at navigating the legal system and throwing up every political and judicial roadblock in the USA, you have a piece of international infrastructure going up which makes it even more challenging, that piece of infrastructure is owned by a non-US entity. Compared to this project, the Saudis and Venezuelans bring their product in on tankers into long standing infrastructure that is owned by US based entities directly into oil friendly states like Louisiana and Texas.

[GeneV]

There are a lot of different factors but I guess the two most important to consider in the context of the three nations you mentioned are NIMBY attitudes, ...

Agree on the NIMBY, but this is not just those obstructive environmentalists. Before a possibly dangerous structure goes through anyone's back yard in a free society, doesn't that person have the understandable right to ask what is in it for him that outweighs the risk? Before we force that risk on someone for the public good, shouldn't that risk and public benefit be examined carefully?

Rightly or wrongly, Louisiana and Texas are "oil friendly" because they get something out of the deal--like schools funded with severance tax. When I was growing up in Texas, there was so much oil money dedicated to the two largest Universities that one of them built a wall around the huge campus so that it would not lose a few millions of its allotment. Perhaps if they shared the money a bit with Nebraska (another Red State) the attitudes there would be more welcoming.

[boriscleto]

This whole project would seem to be slipping to the back burner anyway. Worldwide demand for petroleum products is slipping again thanks to European austerity measures. They are shutting down several refineries in the northeast because demand is so low for gas and the stockpiles of oil are higher than they have been in years.

[mikemike]

Agree on the NIMBY, but this is not just those obstructive environmentalists. Before a possibly dangerous structure goes through anyone's back yard in a free society, doesn't that person have the understandable right to ask what is in it for him that outweighs the risk? Before we force that risk on someone for the public good, shouldn't that risk and public benefit be examined carefully?

Rightly or wrongly, Louisiana and Texas are "oil friendly" because they get something out of the deal--like schools funded with severance tax. When I was growing up in Texas, there was so much oil money dedicated to the two largest Universities that one of them built a wall around the huge campus so that it would not lose a few millions of its allotment. Perhaps if they shared the money a bit with Nebraska (another Red State) the attitudes there would be more welcoming.

I was just explaining to the OP why this project faces resistance.

And it might be good to remind the OP that the US does not forbid Canada from selling oil in the US, far from it. We actually import more oil and petroleum products from Canada (988 MM barrels in 2011) than we do from Saudi Arabia (436 MM Barrels) and Venezuela (345 MM Barrels) combined.

Second, there is concern that the oil being sent over the pipeline may not save any shipping in the U.S. at all. It is going to refineries on the Gulf Coast which may then ship it out to China (as a Cornell study has shown most likely)

I don't see why this is seen as a problem, US Net Imports of oil and petroleum products have declined from 12 MM Barrels/day in 2006 down to 8.4 MM Barrels/day in 2011 and have been closer to 7.5 MM Barrels/day this year. Exporting petroleum products certainly takes a alleviates a good bit of the economic bite the US faces with high oil prices.

[jogiba]

Right, lets tear up the planet and get oil out of shale/tar sands so fat lazy Americans could joy ride in 3 ton full size SUVs or use it to get their fat ass to 7Eleven to pick up a slurpee. Are they like that in Canada ?

[GeneV]

What puzzles me a bit is why the Keystone, routed through eastern Nebraska, is necessary. There appear to be other pipelines getting to the same refineries and junctions. Can't these other routes be upgraded?
http://www.capp.ca/getdoc.aspx?DocID=191097

[Parallax]

Right, lets tear up the planet and get oil out of shale/tar sands so fat lazy Americans could joy ride in 3 ton full size SUVs or use it to get their fat ass to 7Eleven to pick up a slurpee. Are they like that in Canada ?

And we all know that EVERYBODY in America (except jogiba, of course) drives one of those.

[Nesster]

And we all know that EVERYBODY in America (except jogiba, of course) drives one of those.

And we all know that EVERYBODY in America (except jogiba, of course) drives one of those.

That deserves a repeat

jogiba is dead wrong. I drive my SUV to WaWa for an XXL Frozen Bananas Foster Smoothie. I do this because I am an American Citizen (duly naturalized) and hope to meet Romney some day. I'm thinking the two of us could bond over a chocolate donut.

[jolepp]

I seem to recall that the Keystone XL pipeline getting rejected was because the Congress attached a rider to some unrelated bill Obama could not easily veto. The rider, in turn, set a deadline for accepting or rejecting the application by the Obama administration such that this had to be done before a proper evaluation of the project could be completed and before the upcoming presidential election. Accepting the application would have meant criticism for sidestepping the evaluation, rejecting it, predictably, resulted in criticism as well. Without the rider the administration would have delayed the issue until after the election, the rider forced a decision before the election.

[dadipentak]

Nothin' against Canajians, Peter, but I'm agin it.



Here's why.