President Barack Obama rejects KXL: WSJ

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

Never said that he should. Don't make a redline and then do nothing when it's clearly been crossed. He's a dithering mess, has been this entire term.

I know he has fanboys here in Canada, but he's been awful for our interests in general. People love Democrats, but they're protectionist turds.

so aside from this red line thing, what should have he done?

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by Clarkey

Novelty President. Next!

how can a novelty president get so much accomplished aca, etc.

A lot of people here say they are on board with better climate change action, and he has single handedly gotten many countries on board with that.

I don't see those things as novelty, I guess you could though.

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

so aside from this red line thing, what should have he done?

Once they knew Assad's regime used them a dozen cruise missiles on military installations would have been appropriate. Everyone realized he was all talk and no substance after that. Just look how much respect he's garnered from the Russians and Iranians.

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

Once they knew Assad's regime used them a dozen cruise missiles on military installations would have been appropriate. Everyone realized he was all talk and no substance after that. Just look how much respect he's garnered from the Russians and Iranians.

So he should have bombed Syria?

[OldDutch]

Originally Posted by gasman

Not to be picky, but your above statement is not actually true.

While it is true that the majority of the reserves will ultimately need to be produced using alternative production to mining, as they are too deep. with current production, mining currently outproduces SAGD.

Also "home to some of the cleaner oil on earth" is a bit of an unsubstantiated claim. This is certainly not true for the oil sands, either mining which as obvious environmental costs, or SAGD where copius amounts of fuel gas need to be burnt in order to produce the steam needed to produce the oil. I don't have any proof, to the matter, but if we were throwing out unsubstantiated claims about clean oil, I would probably lean towards southern saskatchewan, where they are pulling out heavy oil using conventional methods. or even some of the offshore production that occurs in the atlantic ocean, or gulf of mexico.

At any rate even though it doesn't sound that way, I am on the side of oil. I work in the industry, in both SAGD and Conventional Oil, and rely on it to feed my family.
It does bug me though when people on either side of the debate start throwing out "facts" when they haven't done any due dilligence or fact checking. It reduces the credibility of everyone on that side of the argument.

See chart on well to wheels. My inference would be what the chart states that it is closer to norm than the highest emitter (aka "dirtiest") which is California.

http://www.oilsands.alberta.ca/ghg.html

I also worked for a SAGD producer that was piloting new technology that would drastically reduce the use of steam per barrel and diluant. I saw the projects and worked with the managers.

It isn't un-researched hyperbole. The industry is doing great things to make their product better. I agree it isn't the cleanest, and I never said that, but it is far from the worst as Obama and Co. would have you believe.

EDIT:

Originally Posted by gasman

with current production, mining currently outproduces SAGD

" In 2012 , Alberta’s total in-situ bitumen production was
about 990,000 barrels per day, a 16 per cent increase
from 2011. This accounts for 52 per cent of total crude
bitumen production of about 1.9 million barrels per day. "

http://www.energy.alberta.ca/OilSands/pdfs/FS_SAGD.pdf

[chemgear]

http://calgaryherald.com/business/en...ne-xl-pipeline

Alberta Premier Rachel Notley said Friday she was not surprised by U.S. President Barack Obama’s decision to reject the Keystone XL pipeline, but she is disappointed by the characterization of Alberta bitumen as ‘dirtier crude.’

http://calgaryherald.com/opinion/col...fore-obama-did

Premier Rachel Notley is upset because U.S. President Barack Obama says exactly what some of her own MLAs have said for years — the oilsands are dirty, Keystone is bad.

Maybe she should ask where Obama learned to talk dirty. She might have to admit that he got it, in part, from the Alberta NDP.



Anti-Keystone pipeline and oilsands protestor Robyn Luff held a sign as she gathered with other protestors outside the Harry Hays Building in Calgary on Sept. 26, 2011. to voice their opposition to the project. In May, Luff became an NDP MLA in the riding of Calgary-East.

A banner unfurled that said “Ed Stelmach — the best premier oil money can buy,” and below that, “Stop the Tarsands.”

The demonstrator was Denise Ogonoski, then a part-time employee in MLA Rachel Notley’s Edmonton-Strathcona riding office.

Shannon Phillips, now the environment minister, once co-wrote with Mike Hudema of Greenpeace the introduction to a handbook called An Action a Day Keeps Global Capitalism at Bay.

It gave copious advice on how to save the climate, shut down the oilsands, and harass politicians.

Brian Mason, now Notley’s infrastructure minister, once wrote a blistering anti-Keystone column for the Herald, in which he argued that the pipeline would export jobs from Alberta.

The reality is that the NDP has long opposed Keystone on both economic and environmental grounds. The two wings are not always aligned — Notley and Mason are what have been called industrial New Democrats — but the goal was the same: Kill Keystone.

Now they have.

[Kavvy]

Us Canadians should be frustrated, this is a major blow.

However, to say its because Obama was bought off by environmentalists is foolish and a very blind comment to make.


Obama is protecting the US oil industry without the use of tariffs, but instead by limiting infrastructure.

Obama is keeping investment in the American oil industry and away from Canada. He is doing what is good for his nation.

We can't hold the US hostage and say well we will just sell to someone else because:

A) they already have all they need from our existing pipelines and their own production

B) We can't get pipelines to the west coast of our own nation.



I understand the frustration from us in this thread, but I don't understand the implication from this thread that Obama is just bought off and not looking out for his people. I think that just stems from blind hate of him in general and is irrational.

[Bootsy]

Originally Posted by Kavvy

Us Canadians should be frustrated, this is a major blow.

However, to say its because Obama was bought off by environmentalists is foolish and a very blind comment to make.


Obama is protecting the US oil industry without the use of tariffs, but instead by limiting infrastructure.

Obama is keeping investment in the American oil industry and away from Canada. He is doing what is good for his nation.

We can't hold the US hostage and say well we will just sell to someone else because:

A) they already have all they need from our existing pipelines and their own production

B) We can't get pipelines to the west coast of our own nation.



I understand the frustration from us in this thread, but I don't understand the implication from this thread that Obama is just bought off and not looking out for his people. I think that just stems from blind hate of him in general and is irrational.

I don't necessarily disagree that he is rejecting the pipeline in part to protect American oil interests but when he cites climate change as his number one reason for his decision to reject it, when the States have dirtier oil and are less stringent on emissions then I don't think you can call those implications baseless stemming from blind hate.

[Drak]

Originally Posted by Bootsy

I don't necessarily disagree that he is rejecting the pipeline in part to protect American oil interests but when he cites climate change as his number one reason for his decision to reject it, when the States have dirtier oil and are less stringent on emissions then I don't think you can call those implications baseless stemming from blind hate.

There might be some truth to the environmental stance. Obama has the power to veto new projects that come down the line over whats already been in place.

[killer_carlson]

Albertans now have to see if Trudeau will get pipelines east and west


We also have to consider what are the options if Trudeau does not move on pipelines or holds Alberta hostage for a wealth transfer under the guise of environmentalism

[Kavvy]

Originally Posted by Bootsy

I don't necessarily disagree that he is rejecting the pipeline in part to protect American oil interests but when he cites climate change as his number one reason for his decision to reject it, when the States have dirtier oil and are less stringent on emissions then I don't think you can call those implications baseless stemming from blind hate.

That's a very good point

[heep223]

Originally Posted by Slava

I find people being upset with Obama on Keystone XL a little disingenuous. I mean sure, he could've approved it and help poor old Alberta out, but when we can't get a pipeline built in our own country then we have to face some facts and realities about the perceptions of the oilsands. I'm not sure how upset we can get at Obama and the US in general for not loving the pipeline when they stand to gain very little from approving it. By the same token you would expect a federal government here to ram through a pipeline in Canada to get our oil to markets because they stand to gain a lot.

You don't think it's in their interest to transport our oil via pipeline, as opposed to via rail? Or to have better capacity utilization in their refineries? This is so obviously a political decision it hurts. The U.S. has built 5x the length of Keystone since 2008.

[Kavvy]

On Bill Maher yesterday, their first debate with the panel was about Keystone. Maher is 100% against the pipeline.

However,
It's fairly interesting, the female panelist, Jillian Melchior, brought up some very interesting points about how this decision will increase the carbon footprint of the "tar" sands.

[GGG]

One thing to keep in mind is that other oil is getting dirtier.

For example Kuwait has a cyclic steam project that will build 50,000 vertical wells and use partially desalinated water to get the oil out. Far more energy intensive then Alberta SAGD.

So future barrels is what you need to compare it to not current oil. And any barrel not produced and shipped from Alberta will be replaced elsewhere.

[killer_carlson]

right, but the dirtiness of the energy source isn't being measured on a full spectrum environmental analysis. It's only being measured through the lens of climate change.

[gasman]

Originally Posted by OldDutch

See chart on well to wheels. My inference would be what the chart states that it is closer to norm than the highest emitter (aka "dirtiest") which is California.

http://www.oilsands.alberta.ca/ghg.html

I also worked for a SAGD producer that was piloting new technology that would drastically reduce the use of steam per barrel and diluant. I saw the projects and worked with the managers.

It isn't un-researched hyperbole. The industry is doing great things to make their product better. I agree it isn't the cleanest, and I never said that, but it is far from the worst as Obama and Co. would have you believe.

EDIT:



" In 2012 , Alberta’s total in-situ bitumen production was
about 990,000 barrels per day, a 16 per cent increase
from 2011. This accounts for 52 per cent of total crude
bitumen production of about 1.9 million barrels per day. "

http://www.energy.alberta.ca/OilSands/pdfs/FS_SAGD.pdf

Our government can't even get their own stats right then. Below is the Alberta oil sands quarterly report for feb, 2015. Page 9, would indicate that mining production is over that of SAGD.

http://albertacanada.com/files/alber...e_Fall2015.pdf

[Dan02]

Originally Posted by gasman

Our government can't even get their own stats right then. Below is the Alberta oil sands quarterly report for feb, 2015. Page 9, would indicate that mining production is over that of SAGD.

http://albertacanada.com/files/alber...e_Fall2015.pdf

page 1 of your report states the following

For the first time in 2012, in situ oil
sands production exceeded mined oil
sands production in Alberta. In 2014,
58 per cent of the province’s oil sands
volumes were produced using in situ
methods. Alberta will continue to rely
to a greater extent on in situ production
in the future, as 80 per cent of the
province’s proven bitumen reserves are
too deep underground to recover using
mining methods

[gasman]

Originally Posted by Dan02

page 1 of your report states the following

For the first time in 2012, in situ oil
sands production exceeded mined oil
sands production in Alberta. In 2014,
58 per cent of the province’s oil sands
volumes were produced using in situ
methods. Alberta will continue to rely
to a greater extent on in situ production
in the future, as 80 per cent of the
province’s proven bitumen reserves are
too deep underground to recover using
mining methods

I read that but if you look at the chart on page 9, the production in 2014 appears to be a single point of data where Insitu rose above mining for one-two data points as the trend in both 2013 and 2015 was higher. If you look at the overall trend mining is still more prevalent. I have no doubt that evventually sagd will be the most common method, as most of our reserves our too deep to mine.

But to say that sagd is currently the most most common oil sands extraction method is a stretch.

[Flash Walken]

We aren't talking about the quantifiable 'dirtiness' of the oil, we're talking about framing the issue in the best possible light and jumping through the necessary hoops to appease the necessary groups that will allow you to move forward.

Failing to make the environmental issue an easy sell for a foreign leader is going to be the main obstacle towards completing a pipeline project that crosses the border.

Not addressing it is bull-headed stupidity.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

So he should have bombed Syria?

He "drew a line in the sand" and then wimped out, had he stopped the nightmare and took out Assad right then and there it may have saved thousands of lives and ISIS most likely wouldn't exist.

Obama is possibly the most gutless president in U.S history.