Keystone oil sands pipeline rejected

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

Only because it would be a waste of money when the infrastructure already exists south of the border.

Not if regulatory chill means you can't get your oil down there. What good is a market you can't access?

[seattleflamer]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

The Cornell Institute is hardly an independant study group.



They're about as slanted as the other side is.

I agree there is a left slant but it is the wrong faction. The trade unions lobbied in favor of building XL.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by seattleflamer

I agree there is a left slant but it is the wrong faction. The trade unions lobbied in favor of building XL.

They are also a think tank for environmental activists and social activists.


I'll plow through this tonight if I have time, just taking a look at it they do things like focusing just on specific job roles without looking at ripple effects and long term jobs effects, they also try to balance off a minum of 4600 jobs by talking about green job losses.

They just took into account the actual construction jobs and nothing else that I've seen, but thats just with a skim.

If you took this report, and balanced it against the pro keystone reports and divided it down the middle you'd probably get the truth.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by seattleflamer

I agree there is a left slant but it is the wrong faction. The trade unions lobbied in favor of building XL.

They are out of touch with the union groups in this. If you read this paper, there's a lot of guestimation based around long term jobs so they basically write that off and focus on the rightfully short term jobs.

One area that I do agree with is where they talk about the use of Steel and Steel fabrication from outside of the U.S.

[FlamingLonghorn]

Originally Posted by kunkstyle

Huh. Didn't see that one coming. Glad I cashed in some stocks yesterday.

Between this and SOPA I'd say the Obama administration is doing more harm than good to the economy...

Do you even read the news? Obama said there is no way SOPA goes into law.

Also, Obama's hand was forced on this one, both the Republicans and the White House are posturing on this.

[DownhillGoat]

Originally Posted by Sowa

Do you even read the news? Obama said there is no way SOPA goes into law.

Do you even read posts? I already said I was mistaken.

Yes I read the news, but obviously wasnt up to speed on the sopa issue.

[FlamingLonghorn]

Originally Posted by kunkstyle

Do you even read posts? I already said I was mistaken.

Yes I read the news, but obviously wasnt up to speed on the sopa issue.

Yeah my bad saw that later on. I apologize.

[J epworth]

I'm not too well read in the Oil Sands industry, but is creating refineries in Alberta an option at all? Or is the end result going to be a pipeline to the states, be in in a year of 10 years?

[DownhillGoat]

^Very little return on investment vs massive construction/startup costs. Also, there's the logistics issue of transporting various grades of finished product vs one stream of raw product.

[lucky1]

there is no real need for further refining capacity in north america - the problem is supply to the existing plants. Refining margins are generally to tight nowadays, so it does not make good economic sense to build new refining capacity.
The upgraders currently in northern alberta as well as the new ones/additions being built (Suncor, Syncrude, long Lake, northwestern) turn out high quality feedstock that most existing refineries can take with little to no internal upgrading.
All it will take is Iran to start messing with the straights of hormuz and pen will hit the paper on the pipeline from Alberta to the US. The States will absolutely be fu**ed in the future if this doesnt go thru. The majority of the middle east oil can be affected by any iranian conflict - the majority of the oil in the friendlier post soviet nations (kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan) go thru mother russia...US needs our oil, plain and simple

[Pierre "Monster" McGuire]

At what cost?

Environmentally it is highly destructive as well as having the potential after it's built to be environmentally destructive. The proposed route runs right through the bread basket of the United States not to mention right over top of the biggest artesian aquifer in the United States. The pollution risks are far too high IMO to go through with this pipeline.

Not to mention the proposed pipeline goes right through First Nation's land, which risk destroying an entire culture that is deeply rooted in traditions surrounding hunting and fishing. These people are connected to their land.

Too risky, even if it creates hundreds of jobs. Maybe the U.S. will have to start making progress in alternative fuels.

[grizz29]

The re-routed project will go ahead once Obama is elected to office again later this year. Right now he is just playing political theatre and pandering to the lowest denominator of Americans who drink the kool-aid.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

Isn't it prudent to get the best price for your goods?

It would be negligent not to.

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Oddly I think the most plausible alternative to pipeline Alberta's oil is out east, which is the least desired option among industry.

Which makes sense... you lose part of the Brent/WTI spread going down to Panama, it doesn't get you to the Gulf refineries, and if you ship oil the long way you're even increasing the environmental impacts. It's clearly not the ideal solution from a net benefit perspective.

Originally Posted by Pierre "Monster" McGuire

At what cost?

Environmentally it is highly destructive as well as having the potential after it's built to be environmentally destructive. The proposed route runs right through the bread basket of the United States not to mention right over top of the biggest artesian aquifer in the United States. The pollution risks are far too high IMO to go through with this pipeline.

That's not what the State Department's Final Environmental Impact Statement says. So it goes over an aquifer. The environmental impact of making the pipeline longer to go around it is more significant than the risks of going over it. Darn NIMBYs.

Okay, so there's a risk of a spill if we build it. If we don't build it, there's a 100% chance of massive economic losses. This thing is gonna help pay for healthcare, education and other services from the Canadian and US government. Not building it makes that money disappear. Is that socially responsible?

[Pierre "Monster" McGuire]

Originally Posted by SebC

It would be negligent not to.

Which makes sense... you lose part of the Brent/WTI spread going down to Panama, it doesn't get you to the Gulf refineries, and if you ship oil the long way you're even increasing the environmental impacts. It's clearly not the ideal solution from a net benefit perspective.

That's not what the State Department's Final Environmental Impact Statement says. So it goes over an aquifer. The environmental impact of making the pipeline longer to go around it is more significant than the risks of going over it. Darn NIMBYs.

Okay, so there's a risk of a spill if we build it. If we don't build it, there's a 100% chance of massive economic losses. This thing is gonna help pay for healthcare, education and other services from the Canadian and US government. Not building it makes that money disappear. Is that socially responsible?

Disagree completely.

A risk of polluting the biggest domestic fresh water source heavily outweighs something as trivial as money. Water is far more important than money or the collapse of the U.S. economy.

Besides, there's not a 100% chance of economic losses. It's a quick fix to a much larger problem. There are other ways.

[Clarkey]

Originally Posted by Pierre "Monster" McGuire

At what cost?

Environmentally it is highly destructive as well as having the potential after it's built to be environmentally destructive. The proposed route runs right through the bread basket of the United States not to mention right over top of the biggest artesian aquifer in the United States. The pollution risks are far too high IMO to go through with this pipeline.

Not to mention the proposed pipeline goes right through First Nation's land, which risk destroying an entire culture that is deeply rooted in traditions surrounding hunting and fishing. These people are connected to their land.

Too risky, even if it creates hundreds of jobs. Maybe the U.S. will have to start making progress in alternative fuels.

I can't tell if this is serious or not?

I hope for your sake that your post is veiled parody. If not, you perfectly represent the chronic moronitis that is rampant in the U.S.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Pierre "Monster" McGuire

Disagree completely.

A risk of polluting the biggest domestic fresh water source heavily outweighs something as trivial as money. Water is far more important than money or the collapse of the U.S. economy.

Besides, there's not a 100% chance of economic losses. It's a quick fix to a much larger problem. There are other ways.

Money (and more to the point, economic productivity) is what drives quality of life. It's vastly important.

When you leave your house to go to work, you risk death. Car crash, or something. Yes there's a chance of catastrophe but you take action to mitigate the risk, because going to work is what allows you to pay for your lifestyle.

[Tinordi]

Money (and more to the point, economic productivity) is what drives quality of life. It's vastly important.

Agreed but it's not everything. You'd need to do a full account analysis that looks at what Pierre is talking about to have a full view of the situation.

More specifically, there's some very legitimate concerns that developing this resource not only may have significant costs but will ultimately damage future productive and growth much more than what we're getting from it now.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

How much money did they pay the first time.

The tempting thought is to tell them to pound sand and go West.

I don't disagree, but as pointed out by Cowboy89 earlier I don't think that going west is easy either. I'm sure by now we've all seen the Enbridge hold-up today and we'd be silly to think thats the only group with issues. Even with this decision in the US I still think that is easier to get built than Northern Gateway.

I am curious as to why they don't use rail here though. The tracks are already laid, and basically you could fill cars all day and send it either south or west. I'm sure its more expensive, but at the same time you get rid of all of the land claims issues and red tape with the pipelines. I think that running a few trains a day you could haul all of the bitumen needed. I havent thought this out thoroughly, but would be interested to hear some other thoughts.

[burn_this_city]

I would be nervous about shipping bitumen via railcars through the mountains, one bad derailment would be a huge disaster.

[Pierre "Monster" McGuire]

Originally Posted by Clarkey

I can't tell if this is serious or not?

I hope for your sake that your post is veiled parody. If not, you perfectly represent the chronic moronitis that is rampant in the U.S.

Cool. Good use of ad hominem fallacy.

No, I'm not at all joking. How about telling me what's wrong with my post before saying I represent moronic views. Or maybe offering a counter argument?

I think my opinions on this issue are valid ones and ones that are overlooked by people who think economy is more important than everyday necessities like food and water. As for the First Nation's land point, I think this too is a legitimate concern as preserving traditions and culture are fairly important issues.