US Senate passes Keystone XL bill

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Flacker

As stated before in this thread, the rejection of Keystone XL on environmental grounds is a stretch.

I wonder if the Hollywood tree-huggers enjoy choking on methane gas?

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-35244634

Weird. It almost sounds like you are taking smug satisfaction out of LA being poisoned by an energy infrastructure failure.

I mean, wouldn't this actually prove their point, instead of being some sort of delicious irony?

I'm positive that, just like the Keystone project, this failed pipeline currently spewing methane into the air was guaranteed safe by whoever built it in the first place.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Weird. It almost sounds like you are taking smug satisfaction out of LA being poisoned by an energy infrastructure failure.

I mean, wouldn't this actually prove their point, instead of being some sort of delicious irony?

I'm positive that, just like the Keystone project, this failed pipeline currently spewing methane into the air was guaranteed safe by whoever built it in the first place.

It does in a way, but still makes them hypocritical for not allowing Keystone to go through on environmental grounds.

I personally am definitely not one to shed tears for the oil industry, but if they are going to reject Keystone on that basis, they should be dismantling all other pipelines within their borders.

[Flacker]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Weird. It almost sounds like you are taking smug satisfaction out of LA being poisoned by an energy infrastructure failure.

I mean, wouldn't this actually prove their point, instead of being some sort of delicious irony?

I'm positive that, just like the Keystone project, this failed pipeline currently spewing methane into the air was guaranteed safe by whoever built it in the first place.

No the point is, they should be concerned about their own backyard, instead of slinging mud at their neighbours. They only have to go as far as Bakersfield to find more carbon intensive barrels than anything produced in Alberta.

Also, this is a reservoir failure, not a pipeline. Said reservoir, would have been engineered and maintained with oversight from the EPA.

[Kavvy]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I'm positive that, just like the Keystone project, this failed pipeline currently spewing methane into the air was guaranteed safe by whoever built it in the first place.

Nothing is 100% safe.

The building you're in, could tumble down right now.

The bridge you cross to work - same.

The question that we need to answer is - what statically level of safe are we willing to accept? Is an accident with a statistical chance of 1 :1 000,000 cycles acceptable, or do we spend 100x the money to improve the safety factor by 10? What is your magic number?

This money comes out the public pocket in the end, you can argue it is the companies bottom line, but that is false.

If a project is deems to expensive, it doesn't get built, and therefore the existing infrastructure is only gets used - generally causing more expense to whatever end product is being transported.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Flacker

No the point is, they should be concerned about their own backyard,

I'm pretty sure the US rejecting Keystone on environmental grounds is the textbook definition of being concerned about your own backyard.

[Flacker]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

I'm pretty sure the US rejecting Keystone on environmental grounds is the textbook definition of being concerned about your own backyard.

Keystone already exists, Keystone XL is an expansion of capacity. The new pipeline will pose less risk than the existing, as it would be engineered to current standard, and old pipelines will be the ones to fail. The US oil lobby has won, if many Canadians share your viewpoint.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

I'm pretty sure the US rejecting Keystone on environmental grounds is the textbook definition of being concerned about your own backyard.

Pretty hard to argue that in this hearing though when your state department says multiple times that it won't effect emissions, and under this president they've built enough new pipeline to circle the planet.

Basically at this point it looks more like protectionism then an environmental reason which is what Obama is pointing to, and I believe that's what this arbitration is going to be about.

I think that the other major point of contention and I'm going off of memory is that TCPL wanted to withdraw their application, but Obama refused to let that happen so he could make a political coup in killing it and this cost TCPL even more money.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Flacker

Keystone already exists, Keystone XL is an expansion of capacity. The new pipeline will pose less risk than the existing, as it would be engineered to current standard, and old pipelines will be the ones to fail. The US oil lobby has won, if many Canadians share your viewpoint.

You didn't really address the point.

As it stands, the US is looking out for #1. We can bitch and bluster and complain about it all we want, but shockingly, their own internal lobby has more influence in their country than ours does.

[Robbob]

Anyone know how long until these hearing are heard. Will anything be done before November when Obama will probably just flip the bird and walk out?

[Coach]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

You didn't really address the point.

As it stands, the US is looking out for #1. We can bitch and bluster and complain about it all we want, but shockingly, their own internal lobby has more influence in their country than ours does.

Understandable, but a protectionist policy could also be a violation of NAFTA (I'm not sure how, I don't know what NAFTA actually says word for word).

It's not about who has influence over who/what. It's that there is an agreement for these types of things, and if the US violated it by blocking Keystone XL on these grounds, then that's a problem.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

You didn't really address the point.

As it stands, the US is looking out for #1. We can bitch and bluster and complain about it all we want, but shockingly, their own internal lobby has more influence in their country than ours does.

That's a violation of Nafta though. Just like the American's came dangerously close to it with buy american steel provisions shutting the door on Canadian companies bidding on North American contracts.

Under Nafta you have to keep your markets open to the other two partners and have a fair and transparent system of bidding, or applying to do the work.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

I'm pretty sure the US rejecting Keystone on environmental grounds is the textbook definition of being concerned about your own backyard.

http://business.financialpost.com/ne...-said-anything

environment!

[PsYcNeT]

Hey I'm not saying they were being honest about it, just that that was their excuse.

It will be interesting to see how the NAFTA lawyers weigh on it however. One would think the Obama administration wouldn't be stupid enough to do something that violates a trade agreement for social capital.

That said, the is the US we're talking about.

[Drummer]

Not sure if this is the most relevant/recent thread but there was a pretty big protest in downtown Los Angeles today - mostly for the people at Standing Rock but also against Keystone.

[OldDutch]

Originally Posted by Drummer

Not sure if this is the most relevant/recent thread but there was a pretty big protest in downtown Los Angeles today - mostly for the people at Standing Rock but also against Keystone.

Good I hope the march terminated at the Placerita oil field right in LA. Good on them for marching to show that the dirtiest oil on earth produced right in Los Angeles needs to be shuttered immediately.

David Suzuki says what....?

[OMG!WTF!]

We have cleared the way for the construction of the Keystone and Dakota Access Pipelines -- thereby creating tens of thousands of jobs -- and I've issued a new directive that new American pipelines be made with American steel.

This will make it easier to use that ratty old pipe they've already built for Keystone.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

This will make it easier to use that ratty old pipe they've already built for Keystone.

Was the pipe already made and not yet used for Keystone made in the USA?

[Nufy]

Most of the pipe purchased for KXL is no longer any good.

It sat for so long that it flattened to a slightly oblong shape.

[me_dennis]

Originally Posted by Nufy

Most of the pipe purchased for KXL is no longer any good.

It sat for so long that it flattened to a slightly oblong shape.

Source? sounds pretty unlikely that steel would flatten that easily...

[para transit fellow]

The new challenge is that American steel mills can't make the steel required for the pipeline....
(The original pipe for kxl was apparently imported)