Keystone XL’s Collapse Leaves Canada’s Oil Heartland Seeking Payback

I don't like the oil leaks. Why can't they make it so a leak is impossible?

Still this is 1 of hundreds of pipelines and the only 1 shut down.

 

I build wind blades. It is not very clean to make them because lots of fiber glass is used and when a chemical barrel starts smoking it is taken outside and it sits outside to cool off. Nothing else they can do though so I understand and they do put lids on them but sometimes they still release chemicals into the sky.

Also blades from other companies have been known to fall off into corn fields etc. Luckily that has not happened with my company but we do go out to repair blades.

Clean energy is not so clean but I'm sure it's better than oil. Problem is we are not ready for only clean energy. We still need oil.

 

Biden killed the permit. He put thousunds of workers in America and Canada out of work. Canada's prime minister is upset. Why would Canada be angry if the pipeline was still in use?

I have seen nothing to support your claim.

 

You can only have so many jobs in clean energy. We have alot of wind blade factories in America and around the world and only so many clients that will buy them.

Flooding the industry with more factories and jobs won't work if they don't have people ready to buy the blades. You still needs jobs to replace the ones lost in oil etc and clean energy won't be able to support that many jobs lost.

Does anyone think about these things?

 

Industries come and industries go, things change. By your "reasoning" we should all still be working on farms

 

over 40% of crude coming to US Refineries is imported So rather than get as much of this as possible from Canada - Pipeline, you would like to get this crude from "Nigeria" - by Tanker.

This is your solution to using the 20 million bpd - in the most enviro friendly way is it - the sum total of your contribution to humanity - a solution that

A) violates the NGD - by transporting our pollution problems to other nations
B) increases CO2 emissions via incentivizing industrialization
C) huge increase to Ocean Pollution .. as Nigeria is a huge polluter - and by transport - tanker is way more enviro-unfriendly in every way.
D) Just horrible economically - as Canadian Production is the same as US production .. when the dollars and cents are calculated .. probably 90% or some ridiculously high number. - it may be higher than 100% !? which is interesting .. but what ever .. horrible economic decision on numerous levels
E) slows our evolution to green sources - electric and so on due to decreased revenue - makes it more difficult - and more difficult to help the world - which we will be needing to do - as we do not want the non first world industrializing .. as this will be an environmental disaster .. and may well take us past the Ocean tipping point ..

Good Job ?!

 

1. The Canadian prime minister is upset because we have been flip-flopping on phase 4 of the Keystone pipeline for many years. They rightfully want compensation for lost investment on the project, and will probably get it. This is just for phase 4/KSXL which is a leg to connect to the existing pipeline that will add more volume/share that they can pump to the U.S.. They would/should want another and another if phase 4 is eventually built in the future.

2. The keystone pipeline phases 1 - 3a were successful and completed in total in 2017 which is a pipeline that runs uninterrupted from Alberta Canada to the Gulf of Mexico(Houston/Port Arthur). They can sell oil to the US through the existing keystone pipeline and it can reach the Gulf of Mexico, phase 4/KSXL would just increase the volume/share they could sale.

Also -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keystone_Pipeline
--The Keystone Pipeline System is an oil pipeline system in Canada and the United States, commissioned in 2010 and owned by TC Energy and as of 31 March 2020 the Government of Alberta.[8][9][10][11] It runs from the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin in Alberta to refineries in Illinois and Texas, and also to oil tank farms and an oil pipeline distribution center in Cushing, Oklahoma.[12][13]

 

Did you read the link provided?

Monetary - Canada had an investment, provided on a certain basis. US reneged on the agreement. Lawsuits will ensue...

 

Canada made a sizable investment, based on an agreement with the US. By shutting it down, the US has reneged on that agreement.

What do you think the ramifications would/should be?

 

That doesn't change the US's violation of an agreement. Their are monetary damages, on the overwhelming need of certain groups to ensure the US's dependence on foreign sources.

 

Biden gave Canada the middle finger and got a free pass for it.

 

Uhhh, yes.

I'm just stating what Alberta Premier said earlier also.

Yes...im sure there will be lawsuits.....which will drag on and on.

Fact is...its a done deal.

 

I would bet that absolutely ZERO manufacturing is totally clean. And, I agree that is an issue that can be considered in everything we make.

In the case of manufacturing electricity, the issue is to minimize greenhouse gas emissions per kilowatt hour.

With fossil fuel, it's not just the miniing and fabrication (building of plants, processing the fuel, etc.) - it is that for every hour of the total lifetime of operation significant amounts of greenhouse gas are emitted.

We would need to compare that to your plant construction (blades, towers, etc.) and notice that there are no emissions during the operation of the power plants you build.

No fossil fuel can come within a country mile of wind power in that comparison.

 

As you probably know, one reason crude oil is imported is that we have huge and efficient refinery capacity. So, we import crude, refine it, and then export it.

And, those exports are by ships.

Also, we export oil as our refineries are built to handle (or prefer to handle or more profitably handle) crude oil of specific grades.

I think your "Nigerian" shipping argument is really targeting the refinery and export industry, NOT the XL pipeline.


And no, I don't have ANY solution that requires us to use 20 million bpd. Where did you get that idea?

Clean energy is price competitive today. Whether we need 20 million bpd is at serious question.

There is every reason to believe that we will decrease the need for fossil fuel - especially coal (which is already plummeting) and oil.

The last oil we should EVER consider using is the oil from tar sands extraction processes. To some extent, that is happening naturally, as the price of crude oil dips below the level of profitable extraction.

 

This points out that the jobs claimed by pipline advocates are incredibly temporary AND dead end.

Yes, we flip flopped. There were SEVERAL important international agreements that Trump simply **** canned - demonstrating that a deal with the US is of very little value.

And, now some of those decisions are being put back in place, with the US attempting to earn back the trust of other countries.

That has cost America more than just dollars.

 

most agree with that, it will be a combo of both, especially as energy storage technology improves and are electrical grid infrastructure as well

we keep dumping money into the economy, these are areas to do it as it will create many new jobs for years to come

we just have to be careful, make sure taxpayer money does not end up going to China or another country to make them

 

E says we don't want other nations industrializing???

What is THAT about?

Who are the US leaders who see it as an objective to keep emerging nations from succeeding?

Let's remember that China sure doesn't see it that way. They are the world's leading exporter of clean energy technology. They are making serious political connections with nations that need energy.

 

Well, it certainly would be nice if we were competitive with China in terms of clean energy patents, production, exports, installation, etc.

But, our leadership did not want the US to lead in that industry, and they were successful in using a wide range of methods designed to slow progress.

We can't now decide to further slow our progress by blocking industry and citizens from buying the best, most cost effective solutions on the market.

 

we can if they are using taxpayer money to do it, people can always choose to turn the taxpayer money down for the cheaper foreign goods

 

I'm not saying that there aren't ways to slow people from buying products from other countries.

We definitely CAN do that. We can append caveats to federal loans. We can add tariffs like Trump did. We can add tax incentives to opposing technologies (lke forgiving taxes on oil companies - which we do) thus slowing the whole industry. Etc.

The question is whether it makes sense for America to do that.

Why is it a benefit to America to slow the more cost effective clean energy solutions on the sole grounds that some portion comes from China?

Iowa has cheaper energy, because entrepreneurs in Iowa invested in wind power.

Would it be better for America if they were not allowed to buy solutions from China and instead have Iowans pay more for fossil fuel electricity and for their entrepreneurs not to have this investment opportunity that has created so many jobs for Iowans?

Our standard of living is higher BECAUSE we are free to buy products from anywhere in the world.

And China's clean energy industry is undoubtedly WAY to large to be damaged by the US not buying some of their technology. We would be cutting off our noses to spite our faces, as the saying goes.

If we want a serious clean energy sector in America, we should allow it to grow any way it can. That WILL provide the best opportunity for US entrepreneurs to invest in designing and building competitive solutions.

 

nah, let the market decide if they want to rip out their oil heat in New England and spend tens of thousands $ retrofitting how they heat their homes in the winter

 

OK I don't believe you know what you're talking about.

My home in Seattle has a furnace that was designed for oil.

But, before I owned this home the burner element was replaced with a conversion for natural gas.

That is an eco improvement over oil, it doesn't stink, it's cheaper to operate.

In Massachusettes, 54% of homes are heated by natural gas - either piped as a utility or in tanks.

Half that percent are still heated by oil. My bet would be that those could be converted, preobably more efficiently than was my home, as there have been advances.

I have a daughter who lives in Massachusettes. They just had to replace their gas furnace. That was $7k.

So, moving away from oil is certainly not tens of thousands of retrofit.

 

Oh, like the tax grubbing state and federal governments wouldn't DARE connive a way to tax every volt that charges electric cars as tax revenues from gas plummet?

 

I have NO idea where that came from.

Maybe the real issue here is one of how we should pay for features we use.

In WA, our gas tax is how roads get paid for.

Do you believe that electric cars shouldn't contribute to that?

Do you bleieve there is some other way in which roads should be paid for?

 

You kind of talk around the issue but do not address my central claim - which is industrialization being the biggest environmental threat.

You are seeming to have trouble understanding basic mass balance - sorry but this is not a complex equation.

What ever we do not get from Canada - we must must get from somewhere else .. be it to a refinery or otherwise. This is not just Canada but domestic production in general.

Either we produce it - or someone else produces it - Do you not understand this ? no need to get complex

So what " not getting oil by Pipeline from Canada/Domestic does, is increases the amount of crude we need to get from somewhere else.

The act of increasing our consumption of "Nigerian" crude does the following

1) increases the CO2 equation - not only by tanker being more energy intensive but by industrialization of a non first world nation.
2) increases Ocean Pollution - massively - A) Nigeria is major polluter Canada/US doesn't dump heavy metals and persistent organic pollutants into the Oceans .. B) Industrialization is the major cause of pollution
3) Transports our pollution problems to other nations - nations far less equipped and/or able and/or willing to handle energy production and deal with the resulting pollution

You - and everyone else holding your position - lives in complete denial - or lack of understanding - of the "Industrialization" part of the equation .. the "Root Cause" issue .. in conjunction with Population Growth ... something Michael Moore pointed out in his latest flick .. but something I have been saying for 3 decades .. being a subject matter expert in this field.

Moore was demonized for speaking the truth - Blue is "Anti Science" w/r to many environmental Realities .. policy driven by a political bandwagon that has formed .. one which is now largely based on falsehood in many respects - and in denial of the systemic root cause issues .. which - if are not addressed - will result - and is resulting in enviro disaster.

Google "Dead Zones" - and "Sargassum Epidemic" Ocean is not a garbage can mate .. can only handle so much - and we are hitting the limits in some areas - not in 50 years - but right now ..

China's CO2 emissions went from really low like 5% or some such thing .. to 28% of world CO2 - and the concurrent ocean and air pollution is staggering. US is 15% for comparison. That was industrializing roughly 300 million people over the last 3 decades.

We have industrialized perhaps 500 million over the last 2-3 decades - the increase in pollution and CO2 in doing this was massive ..

So we have gone from 1.4 Billion industrialized to 1.9. Lets say we get to 2.4 Billion by 2030 .. further increasing CO2 and emissions.

At that time - the earths population will have grown from 7 to 8.5 Billion .. so although we industrialized 1 billion people there are 500 million more non industrialized people than when we started .. and we are just a fraction of the total industrialized.

I am Sorry - and it is understandable why people do not want to talk about this but -- taking someone eating a bowl of rice a day - and moving them to the first world - is the most environmentally irresponsible thing you can do ... this persons consumption is increased by 36 times . CO2 - Pollution and so on.

So the solution of you and others to the problem - is to invest in and incentivize industrialization of 2cnd/3rd world - as that is exactly what you are doing by not building the Keystone and/or increasing domestic production.

This is reality - and it is not pretty .. Let me know when you figure out what we are going to do when the anoxic portion of the Ocean grows so large that it starts to decrease the oxygen output significantly.