Keystone XL

Not really sure why people make a big deal about this, it has minimal impact on the economy and on greenhouse gases. Nor does it make Obama look like an environmentalist.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/keystone-xl-wasnt-about-jobs-or-the-climate-it-was-all-politics/

The overall economic benefits of the pipeline were slim, as well. Although some counties with project facilities could have seen revenues from property taxes rise 10 percent or more, the construction itself projected to add just $3.4 billion, or 0.02 percent, to the gross domestic product. With gasoline prices near multiyear lows, in part because of the increased U.S. supplies obtained by fracking, the pipeline would have made little difference for most American consumers.

The State Department report concluded that tapping the oil sands slated for transport through Keystone XL would pour 1.3 million to 27.4 million metric tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere per year. (For comparison, U.S. greenhouse gas emissions totaled 6,673 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents in 2013.) That's a lot of carbon, but those numbers come from the oil itself, not its method of transport. The State Department and many others who've studied the issue have concluded that the Canadian oil will get extracted regardless of whether the pipeline is built.

. In August, the administration approved Royal Dutch Shell's request to restart drilling off Alaska's northwest Arctic coast.
Click to expand...

It simply became a battle over politics, flexing muscles.
 
We'd rather sell it to other people anyways, you guys can keep shoving your dick into the beehive that is the middle east and fracking till you have no water left.
 
13541390:Rusticles said:
We'd rather sell it to other people anyways, you guys can keep shoving your dick into the beehive that is the middle east and fracking till you have no water left.
Click to expand...

It's not like Canada would have been selling the US oil, it would have been refined in America and a large portion of the oil would be exported.
 
From Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall, he sums it up way better than I ever could:

Today's announcement is very disappointing, not only for our energy sector but also for the signal it sends about Canada-US relations. Given the facts of the project as canvassed by the US State Department, this decision is more about US domestic politics than it is about good environmental policy.



The fact is pipelines are safer - far safer than other means of transporting oil, like rail. There are currently over 66,000 miles of oil pipeline in the US with over 12,000 miles - the equivalent of 10 Keystone XLs - built since 2010.



Oil will move with or without pipelines. Consider the facts. In 2008, there were 9500 rail carloads of oil shipped in the US. By 2014, that number had jumped to 493,000 - over 50 times as many. The US State Department even agrees that greenhouse gas emissions from rail are much higher than emissions from pipeline. Yet on Keystone XL, the US administration chose to put political interests ahead of the economic and environmental benefits that KXL would provide, and ahead of its relationship with its most important trading partner, Canada.



This decision makes approval of Energy East even more crucial and it will be one of Saskatchewan's top priorities as we begin our work with the new federal government.

Especially after the Lac Megantic disaster I'm far more partial to pipelines for the transportation of crude and other dangerous goods. I don't know about your towns but the two I live in both have railroads running through their centres; close to large residential areas at that. I'd much rather see a pipeline located remotely from city centres instead of rail transportation.

Regardless of what the US people's opinion was on the matter Obama was probably going to veto it anyways.
 
Lol, as soon as oil prices go back up, it will be built, that and as soon as all the TPP changes come into effect as well. We've built many before, just as big if not bigger. Celebrate while you can, if you even see this as reason to celebrate.
 
13541455:Squirrel_Murphy said:
Lol, as soon as oil prices go back up, it will be built, that and as soon as all the TPP changes come into effect as well. We've built many before, just as big if not bigger. Celebrate while you can, if you even see this as reason to celebrate.
Click to expand...

It really just boils down to the US looking out for themselves. Oil prices are low because of an excess in production from OPEC. If production isn't held back at some point somewhere the price will never increase. The US because of fracking, is able to increase their production. The US can't influence OPEC's production, but they can definitely make it tough for us Canadians to get our oil to market. Simple economics really.

I'm glad it wasn't approved, I really don't think it's in our best interest to ship raw bitumen (it was a bitumen line right?). I live right in the middle of the industrial heartland and although I don't work for an oil company the oilsands boom has definitely inflated my wage. I hope that this will allow us to upgrade our oil here before shipping it, maybe even another new refinery. Hopefully either the rest of Canada or BC can step up and we can get a pipeline built to a coast and ship refined crude.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top