Obama wins: Will he build keystone?

[Plett25]

During his victory speech, Barry O mentioned "freeing ourselves from foreign oil"

I'm pretty sure Bronco Bama considers Canadian and Mexican production to be in the gray zone between domestic and foreign.

If congress sends him a clean bill for Keystone, he'll sign it. But if they play politics and attach garbage like "legitimate rape" to it, he'll veto it.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Plett25

If congress sends him a clean bill for Keystone, he'll sign it. But if they play politics and attach garbage like "legitimate rape" to it, he'll veto it.

No act of congress is required, I believe. The pipeline requires only a presidential permit. He doesn't need congress to send him anything.

The house tried to force him to approve it by mandating a decision date, and he rejected it instead. But he doesn't need congress to do anything if he wants to approve it.

[blankall]

As unenvironmentally sound as this is, it makes sense. Society is unenvironmentally sound, and right now it needs oil. Makes much more sense for Alberta to ship oil to the USA, than it does for Alberta to ship oil to China. Also, decreases the USA's reliance on offshore oil, most notably from the middle east.

As long as the USA's population continues to grow at this rate, it's increased demand for oil will offset any moves forward in renewable energy and efficiency. In other words the USA will continue to require oil for some time to come. It might as well come from the closest source.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I don't really buy the destruction of America through Republican evil, the system has too many checks and balances, and any party that gets elected knows that any radical change will probably cause them to lose elections.

Plus unless the supreme court gets reconstituted anything nutty is probably going to get challenged and over ruled.

People said the same thing about Harper and the Conservatives and hinted at hidden agenda's but they really never came to pass because a saavy politician and leader knows that the path of destruction is littered with civil right errors.

I don't buy it either for the most part... the nice thing about social policy is it has a built in oversight and veto by the courts. Sadly, bad economic policy has no such oversight.

What I meant before was, if people are hailing a victory for a decidedly mediocre incumbent president because the other guy is "socially regressive", wait until they see who's next if/when Obama fails to execute proper fiscal policy.

I agree people get suckered into the social evils boogeyman argument way too easily, and it blinds them to other issues, but I could see some social conservative policy decisions that don't involve overturning Roe v. Wade or criminalizing homosexuality that could damage the economy almost as badly as poor fiscal policy.

With that in mind, the Republicans did a terrible job sticking to the big issue and coming up with a somewhat reasonable plan. Be honest and say, yes, slash and burn on government expenses, tax code revamp, federal GST, and no hikes only for the rich. Dicking around and waffling and chatting about mindless social policy gets you the result we see today.

[Handsome B. Wonderful]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

No, I dont think he will. It goes against his image and legacy.

What legacy?

[Flacker]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

Does he let keystone get built now that he has won?


(I sure hope so, as I don't trust BC to be smart enough to let us build a pipeline west).

As a born and raised Calgarian, I don't trust the producers to do this is a safe/fool-proof manner. Yeah those BC dumbies looking out for the condition of their natural environment as well as making sure they get compensated for risking said environment.

YES, let's put a HUGE transfer facility in Kitimat which is the definition of pristine wilderness. We are one drunk tanker captain away from our own Exxon Valdez.

Having spend some time in this part of BC, I personally wouldn't risk it for any amount of $$$.

Is it cost prohibitive to pipe to somewhere that already has been industrialized like Vancouver Harbour?

Is Northern Gateway pipeline intended for just LNG or are they planning to pipe crude? I could get behind LNG, but piping crude would be a tough sell.

[Azure]

Yes, but he'll do it in exchange for getting what he wants in terms of the looming fiscal cliff.

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by Handsome B. Wonderful

What legacy?

1 - The first AA president.
2 - 2 term president

Plus he has pushed renewables technology as a way for the US to regain their technological edge. Pumping "dirty, duck killing oil" doesnt go well with that direction.

His base doesnt care about foreign oil or where it comes from and lobyists from the ME have more money behind them than Canadian O/G producers.

Conoco are rumored to be shopping alot of oilsands properties recent months. This seems like a strange move by a company if they believe that the pipeline to be a "done deal"

[Handsome B. Wonderful]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

1 - The first AA president.
2 - 2 term president

He won't agree to the pipeline because it goes against his legacy as the first black president? Come on...

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by Handsome B. Wonderful

He won't agree to the pipeline because it goes against his legacy as the first black president? Come on...

You asked what his legacy is, it has nothing to do with it but it is part of his legacy.

[Tinordi]

He wont approve keystone without some alternate victory he can claim on greenhouse gases. The intensity of the anti-keystone demonstrations will be amplified even further this second time around and for good measure with Sandy and the summer drought bringing climate change back to the public agenda.

So whatever that may be, it will be requisite for approval.

[Kavvy]

Originally Posted by Flacker

[/B]

YES, let's put a HUGE transfer facility in Kitimat which is the definition of pristine wilderness. We are one drunk tanker captain away from our own Exxon Valdez.

Is it cost prohibitive to pipe to somewhere that already has been industrialized like Vancouver Harbour?

Is Northern Gateway pipeline intended for just LNG or are they planning to pipe crude? I could get behind LNG, but piping crude would be a tough sell.

Couple things…

1. I agree with you, let’s put a facility in Kitimat in the middle of nowhere, away from people, as I do not want that in my backyard. This “Huge facility” is going to have a much smaller footprint then you’re making it sound, it won’t be somehow stretching into the interior of BC. Also, Kitmat is developed, to a very tiny degree.
2. The drunken tanker captain argument shouldn’t be mentioned here, I would argue a spill in the Harbor of Vancouver is just as bad as one in the ocean in the middle of nowhere. If you’re ok with tankers in Vancouver, it makes zero sense to not be ok with tankers in middle of nowhere BC.
3. Crude is gross and stays around for a while; LNG blows up and can kill people much easier. Both suck if there is a leak.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Flacker

[/B]
Is it cost prohibitive to pipe to somewhere that already has been industrialized like Vancouver Harbour?

Is Northern Gateway pipeline intended for just LNG or are they planning to pipe crude? I could get behind LNG, but piping crude would be a tough sell.

The Trans-Mountain pipeline already goes to Vancouver, and they have also applied to build an expansion. (basically a 2nd pipeline right beside the existing line). So it is an option, if it gets approved, which isn't a sure thing. It's quite likely we need both, however.

The northern gateway pipeline is intended for oil, not gas. There are numerous plans for LNG plants on the west coast, and they will generally require pipelines, which don't seem as controversial. Also as a note, you don't pipe LNG, you pipeline gas and then liquify it into LNG at a site on the coast.

[Flacker]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

The Trans-Mountain pipeline already goes to Vancouver, and they have also applied to build an expansion. (basically a 2nd pipeline right beside the existing line). So it is an option, if it gets approved, which isn't a sure thing. It's quite likely we need both, however.

The northern gateway pipeline is intended for oil, not gas. There are numerous plans for LNG plants on the west coast, and they will generally require pipelines, which don't seem as controversial. Also as a note, you don't pipe LNG, you pipeline gas and then liquify it into LNG at a site on the coast.

I can understand a gas pipeline being much less controversial, the environmental impact of a leak is significantly less. Crude oil is near impossible to contain should it leak into waterways, and anything it touches typically dies.

[Flacker]

Originally Posted by Kavy

Couple things…

1. I agree with you, let’s put a facility in Kitimat in the middle of nowhere, away from people, as I do not want that in my backyard. This “Huge facility” is going to have a much smaller footprint then you’re making it sound, it won’t be somehow stretching into the interior of BC. Also, Kitmat is developed, to a very tiny degree.
2. The drunken tanker captain argument shouldn’t be mentioned here, I would argue a spill in the Harbor of Vancouver is just as bad as one in the ocean in the middle of nowhere. If you’re ok with tankers in Vancouver, it makes zero sense to not be ok with tankers in middle of nowhere BC.
3. Crude is gross and stays around for a while; LNG blows up and can kill people much easier. Both suck if there is a leak.

On point 1, I agree. Alcan Kitimat is ugly as sin already, it is more the shipping "lanes" out of that area is akin to running the gaunlet, there isn't a lot of room for error.

On point 2, I would argue that in Van Harbour response time as well as resources at hand would make it significantly more attractive. Containment would be a lot easier to achieve.

3. I would think sour gas (H2S) would be a major concern with a gas line as well.

[seattleflamer]

Originally Posted by Azure

Yes, but he'll do it in exchange for getting what he wants in terms of the looming fiscal cliff.

Fiscal cliff has a wholly different set of compromises with the Simpson-Bowles commission and various work arounds to the Grover Norquist pledge as a framework for a "win-win" deal.

OTOH, Keystone is an important bargaining chip with Congress to pass Obama's green legacy. He took a lot of flak during the campaign to now bend over and simply pass it like Romney would.

GOP politicized the issue and BO will use it to his advantage.

EDIT: yeah, what Tinordi said.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Flacker

On point 1, I agree. Alcan Kitimat is ugly as sin already, it is more the shipping "lanes" out of that area is akin to running the gaunlet, there isn't a lot of room for error.

On point 2, I would argue that in Van Harbour response time as well as resources at hand would make it significantly more attractive. Containment would be a lot easier to achieve.

3. I would think sour gas (H2S) would be a major concern with a gas line as well.

Any H2S would be removed before the gas went into a pipeline to the coast for LNG.

[Flacker]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

Any H2S would be removed before the gas went into a pipeline to the coast for LNG.

Makes sense, being so corrosive you wouldn't want it in your pipe.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

Any H2S would be removed before the gas went into a pipeline to the coast for LNG.

BC gas has no or very little sour gas.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

BC gas has no or very little sour gas.

I'm aware of that, which is why I said "Any H2S," as opposed to "The H2S." IE, if there was any significant amount they'd take it out. It is also possible, although it wouldn't be first, that gas from the Alberta foothills could be exported off the west coast.

In any case, the point I was trying to make is that H2S is removed down to spec from gas before it goes into a transmission pipeline, so it shouldn't be an issue with respect to LNG projects.