US Senate passes Keystone XL bill

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

I'm assuming you mean me. They need 20 more votes in the house and 4 in the senate to override a veto. Consequently, I guess I reluctantly want republicans to win additional seats in order to make that happen. Where's the facepalm?

[Regorium]

I also find it weird that Keystone XL is the portion that causes so many issues.

The first three phases of Keystone are comparatively inefficient due to trying their best to use old pump stations and old right-of-ways. Keystone XL uses brand new tech for the entire route, with the route itself being far superior from an environmental perspective due to a far more recent and current environmental study.

There's also far less pipe in XL than keystone phase I. Less pipe = less leaks. More capacity means that you can load balance, and lower pressures = less failures.

In many other industries, TransCanada would be heralded - they made a decision to invest in new infrastructure long before it was needed (ie. in 2008) in order to reduce overloading their current infrastructure - unlike Shaw, Telus or Bell, who keep trying to squeeze additional customers onto their overloaded network (and charging more while they're at it!).

It's just so backwards how this entire process has been. I do understand that it's somehow become a proxy fight for the entirety of the world's climate change, but it is still so weird to me.

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by T-Rich

Good thing pipelines never leak. EDIT: This was in reference to the linked article about train derailment.

However my comment was referring to climate change, which I consider to be a significantly larger issue than localized oil spills whether they come from a train or a pipeline.

Well I'm with you there but this isn't a production issue and as far as transportation is concerned this is much safer than truck or train

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by T-Rich

Absolutely it will. Do you think that if a company gets a higher price for a good, that doesn't send signals to produce more.

Will it have a significant impact on production, probably not, but it will have some impact.

X barrels of oil are burned per day.

So you're telling me that oil will get more expensive (the aforementioned higher price)

Therefore more will be produced

And people are just going to spontaneously burn more than the original X barrels per day, now that it's even more expensive?

I missed that chapter in Economics for Hippies.....

If people aren't burning it, they will stop producing it. It's very simple.

[Drummer]

I went on YouTube and searched "Obama Keystone XL" and sorted the results by date. The first 10 or 20 videos are interesting - seeing peoples thoughts and reactions.

[T-Rich]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

X barrels of oil are burned per day.

So you're telling me that oil will get more expensive (the aforementioned higher price)

Therefore more will be produced

And people are just going to spontaneously burn more than the original X barrels per day, now that it's even more expensive?

I missed that chapter in Economics for Hippies.....

If people aren't burning it, they will stop producing it. It's very simple.

Keystone isn't about the supply/demand curve of one market though. Its TransCanada saying hey we can make more money if we build a pipeline and sell to the international market rather than ship via rail to the north america market. If they have access to that international market and prices are better there, companies will produce more. If they produce more, the cost of the international market will in theory go down but as long as it is higher than the north american market, the companies are still ahead, getting a better price and selling more. Further if the price in the international market went down, in theory demand would increase, which would again result in increased production.

I agree that pipelines are a safer way to transport than rail. I agree that suppliers are just meeting a demand and that consumers need to take responsibility to reduce demand. I agree that the Keystone project has gotten blown way out of proportion for the amount of effect it will have. Keystone, and the oilsands in general, are a small part of the problem especially compared to the reputation and flack they get. I'm much more anti-coal, than anti-oilsands. I just think we are in so deep at this point with climate change with no solution in sight that any reduction in emissions, even deferring the approval of a project that will have an "insignificant" increase in production, is still a win for the environment.

[Nufy]

Originally Posted by Regorium

I also find it weird that Keystone XL is the portion that causes so many issues.

The first three phases of Keystone are comparatively inefficient due to trying their best to use old pump stations and old right-of-ways. Keystone XL uses brand new tech for the entire route, with the route itself being far superior from an environmental perspective due to a far more recent and current environmental study.

There's also far less pipe in XL than keystone phase I. Less pipe = less leaks. More capacity means that you can load balance, and lower pressures = less failures.

In many other industries, TransCanada would be heralded - they made a decision to invest in new infrastructure long before it was needed (ie. in 2008) in order to reduce overloading their current infrastructure - unlike Shaw, Telus or Bell, who keep trying to squeeze additional customers onto their overloaded network (and charging more while they're at it!).

It's just so backwards how this entire process has been. I do understand that it's somehow become a proxy fight for the entirety of the world's climate change, but it is still so weird to me.

All the technology on The original Keystone Line was brand new...

I know because i was part of the start-up team for approx 80% of the sites.

They used existing right of ways and re-classified portions of their gas pipeline through Sask and Manitoba to reduce costs.

Manitoba south to Steele City and on to Patoka was brand new pipe as far as I know.

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

X barrels of oil are burned per day.

So you're telling me that oil will get more expensive (the aforementioned higher price)

Therefore more will be produced

And people are just going to spontaneously burn more than the original X barrels per day, now that it's even more expensive?

I missed that chapter in Economics for Hippies.....

If people aren't burning it, they will stop producing it. It's very simple.

No, he's telling you that oil companies will receive higher netbacks, not necessarily that the price will increase.

And no, it is not very simple.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Hillary opposes it, pretty much means the future of the pipeline comes down to who wins the 2016. A Democrat win and Keystone is dead (or dead until 2020 at the earliest).

“I have a responsibility to you and other voters,” Clinton, a former secretary of state, said at a town hall event in Iowa.

“I think it is imperative that we look at the Keystone pipeline as what I believe is the distraction from the important work we have to do to combat climate change.”

“Therefore, I oppose it,” she said.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com//news...click=sf_globe

[Looch City]

A Democrat win, Keystone XL is dead.

A Republican win, US is dead.

...Both of which affect Canada haha.

[puckedoff]

Hard to imagine Republicans winning the next election, with the candidates they have. Maybe Biden will emerge as a Democrat candidate and come out in favour of KXL...

Reality is that at this point, increased global competition for market share greatly reduces the benefit that KXL will have for Canada. The delays have turned the project essentially into a missed opportunity, even if it were approved today.

[Regorium]

At least now we know it's ideological, rather than "environmental studies" or other garbage.

[CaptainCrunch]

It just goes to show that we can't sit here and continually call the US our best friends.

Between the current administration dithering on appointing a ambassadress because we're not important to them, to Keystone, to Obama bashing the Oilsands while ignoring the US' filthy Oil extraction in California, the relationship between the two governments has chilled considerably.

At this point its time to find other ways to get our products to other markets, because clearly the States wants to deny us that.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by puckedoff

Hard to imagine Republicans winning the next election, with the candidates they have. Maybe Biden will emerge as a Democrat candidate and come out in favour of KXL...

Reality is that at this point, increased global competition for market share greatly reduces the benefit that KXL will have for Canada. The delays have turned the project essentially into a missed opportunity, even if it were approved today.

Biden if he gets in will only have one job and that's to protect Obama's legacy, that's why they were so jacked when they heard that he might run.

[FlameOn]

Originally Posted by Iggy City

A Democrat win, Keystone XL is dead.

A Republican win, US is dead.

...Both of which affect Canada haha.

Well we'll have "The Wall" built out at the border if the GOP wins and huge amounts of protectionist economic fud thrown our way so I'd think we in Alberta are screwed either way. Sigh...

[Clarkey]

What a gutless wonder. She announced a few days ago that "she needs to make a decision on KXL soon", which in hindsight was a nudge-nudge to potential campaign donors to grease the palms now if you want your way. I guess someone like Tom Steyer made another $100 Million vanity purchase or worse yet one of the Environazi groups upped the anti (funded by who???). Transcanada could have easily passed $250 million under the table to get the project through but it's an ethical company and chose to play by the rules.

Iranian, Saudi, Venezuelan oil, come on in we'll make it easier for you. Don't be shipping oil from Canada unless it's by rail!

[T@T]

Originally Posted by Iggy City

A Democrat win, Keystone XL is dead.

A Republican win, US is dead.

...Both of which affect Canada haha.

Why would you say that? after 8 years of a complete softy in office maybe a republican with some balls is just what the doctor ordered. We already know Hillary can't/won't supply any balls.

[OldDutch]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

It just goes to show that we can't sit here and continually call the US our best friends.

Between the current administration dithering on appointing a ambassadress because we're not important to them, to Keystone, to Obama bashing the Oilsands while ignoring the US' filthy Oil extraction in California, the relationship between the two governments has chilled considerably.

At this point its time to find other ways to get our products to other markets, because clearly the States wants to deny us that.

We are important to them, like a servant is important to a master. The master will protect the servant, maybe joke time to time with him, but in the end don't get it confused your not the masters friend.

Keystone and the Oilsands is their way of using Canada as a political scapegoat with little to no repercussions. They want our oil, all they can get, they just want it on their terms. As it stands now much of that Keystone oil will flow to Chicago where the Americans can give Canadians a b%&h price called WCS. Meanwhile the international market can be filled with their oil derived by fracturing boom that has been shown to be environmentally iffy at best. Funny when it is American Oil or Coal the protesters go quiet, why is that?

On your last point, call up Christie Clark in BC, Stephen Harper, heck average uneducated Canadian that thinks blocking pipelines is "the right thing to do". Both of them have totally dropped the ball and cost Canada billions. Northern Gateway should be built, the line reversal should be operational. These are national interests. Sadly Canadians just don't get that US is a partner at best, which is fine, but that partner won't give up even a crumb. The time to start growing some stones and quit acting Canadian has to happen soon or we will all suffer as a country.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by OldDutch

On your last point, call up Christie Clark in BC, Stephen Harper, heck average uneducated Canadian that thinks blocking pipelines is "the right thing to do". Both of them have totally dropped the ball and cost Canada billions. Northern Gateway should be built, the line reversal should be operational. These are national interests. Sadly Canadians just don't get that US is a partner at best, which is fine, but that partner won't give up even a crumb. The time to start growing some stones and quit acting Canadian has to happen soon or we will all suffer as a country.

If you want to blame someone for Northern Gateway, it's Harper. It's his cuts to the environment and the coast guard, as well as his dealings with First Nations that's pissed most of BC off too much for it to happen now.

[FlameOn]

Originally Posted by rubecube

If you want to blame someone for Northern Gateway, it's Harper. It's his cuts to the environment and the coast guard, as well as his dealings with First Nations that's pissed most of BC off too much for it to happen now.

^This. Harper is the oil pipelines worst enemy. He's painted a target so big now on these things it's hard to get them completed. Macleans has a great article on exactly this.
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/otta...s-worst-enemy/