HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » The Flip Side of Obama's ...

Sun Sep 8, 2013, 07:55 PM

The Flip Side of Obama's Keystone XL Delay - "Obama pulled a fast one"

Oh, you silly environmentalists! You thought you had convinced Obama to be wary of pipelines when he delayed the northern half of the Keystone XL pipeline. (XL is short for extension line) But you fell for his 11th dimensional chess because by Executive Order. He was just funning with you!

http://www.mintpressnews.com/obamas-keystone-xl-tradeoff-expedite-all-other-pipelines/168569/

Feeling the pressure from protest against the Keystone XL from groups such as the Tar Sands Action, Indigenous Environmental Network and others, Obama pulled a fast one: “wait and see” for XL’s northern half – which many claimed as a victory – and expedited approval of everything else via executive order.

That’s because Obama’s order also called for expedited permitting and review of all domestic infrastructure projects – including but not limited to pipelines – as a reaction to the Keystone XL resistance.

A months-long Mint Press News investigation reveals the executive order wasn’t merely a symbolic gesture. Rather, many key pipeline and oil and gas industry marketing projects are currently up for expedited review, making up for — and by far eclipsing — the capacity of Keystone XL’s northern half. The original TransCanada Keystone pipeline – as is – already directly connects to Cushing from Alberta, making XL (short for “extension line”) essentially obsolete.

Little time was wasted building the XL’s southern half after Obama issued the Order and within a slim two years, TransCanada will have its first direct line from Alberta to Gulf Coast refineries in southern Texas.

12 replies, 1344 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 12 replies Author Time Post
Reply The Flip Side of Obama's Keystone XL Delay - "Obama pulled a fast one" (Original post)
Divernan Sep 2013 OP
Divernan Sep 2013 #1
Sen. Walter Sobchak Sep 2013 #5
HumansAndResources Sep 2013 #8
Sen. Walter Sobchak Sep 2013 #10
HumansAndResources Sep 2013 #12
mike_c Sep 2013 #2
Divernan Sep 2013 #3
Sen. Walter Sobchak Sep 2013 #4
DeSwiss Sep 2013 #6
Wilms Sep 2013 #7
bhikkhu Sep 2013 #9
CrispyQ Sep 2013 #11

Response to Divernan (Original post)

Sun Sep 8, 2013, 08:00 PM

1. The tar sands industry burns enough natural gas every day to heat at least 6 million homes

This is a comment from the OP link:
Rudy Haugeneder
Most Americans and Canadians don't know that Canada already supplies the USA with about 20% of its oil imports -- roughly 12% of all the oil Americans consume -- and exports of dirty tar sands bitumen through new pipelines intends to eventually at double the amount going south.

Each barrel requires the consumption of three barrels of fresh water from the Athabasca River which is a key part of the world's third-largest watershed. As well, to mine or steam out bitumen, the tar sand industry burns enough natural gas every day to heat at least six million homes. And that too will eventually double and could severely compromise Canada's natural gas supplies by 2030 -- less than 17 years from now.

Canada needs a prime minister who cares.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Divernan (Reply #1)

Sun Sep 8, 2013, 09:11 PM

5. The natural gas used in the oilsands would otherwise be flared

So... who cares?

The alternative was nuclear.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sen. Walter Sobchak (Reply #5)

Mon Sep 9, 2013, 02:03 AM

8. Why Would It Necessarily Be Flared? Why Not Use It In Place Of Gasoline Like Much Of The World?

 

CNG is much less toxic than Diesel or Gasoline. Try to calculate how many gallons of gasoline could have been replaced with what was flared in Alaska alone in the past 50 years? How many fewer premature deaths from exposure to toxic chemicals?

The "flaring" is about keeping plentiful energy scarce - and Artificially Expensive.

In the case of the Tar Sands, this is a very expensive form of energy, with the pipeline serving as a way to offset Venezuelan imports. Can't have actual "regular folks" benefiting from oil-sales, after all - unless they are Scandinavians.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HumansAndResources (Reply #8)

Mon Sep 9, 2013, 01:03 PM

10. Artificially expensive? natural gas prices are lower than flatulence.

And naturally you would be in favor of building pipelines to bring the gas that would otherwise be flared to market? right?

Increased flaring is a result of oil production in locations with no gas infrastructure. Far more infrastructure is required for gas extraction than oil or bitumen.

Have you been to Alberta? I think the "regular folks" are benefiting plenty. US retailers are having knife fights in the parking lot over spaces in malls.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sen. Walter Sobchak (Reply #10)

Wed Sep 11, 2013, 01:27 AM

12. Pipelines, CNG Systems, Electric Power Lines and Stations ...

 

... to the extent those lower toxin-emissions and make energy as inexpensive as it was when our economy was booming (not that this was the only factor - but the gasoline-spike and crash we are still in were not unrelated, either)

Just for the record, I am not a "Gore-ite" - I worry about toxins killing us now, much more than a theoretical CO2 rise which, contrary to Gore's film's big lie, followed, rather than preceded, the warming he charted. I also see more cheap energy as a positive goal to strive for - a benefit to humanity in general. That said, I don't trust the Oil companies One Iota.

While I agree natural gas is at a low price (a complex issue also relevant to the fixed-high-price of crude vis-a-vis China, and etc), if it were that cheap, gasoline would have been forced down significantly in areas where it is produced, as a result of the existence of a lower-cost, alternative energy source. Oddly, where i have seen a prevalence of CNG consumer vehicles, are in nations that must import it - and where its cost is only slightly lower than gasoline.

As to oil-jobs - yes, those have traditionally paid well - to those who get them, and this has a welcome effect to those who provide goods and services to those so employed.

I view the solution to be the citizenry owning the reserves of all mineral resources as individual shares, which they can sell directly into the commodities market, and who hire out the drilling, transport, and refining to organizations who bid for those jobs. This breaks "cartel control" while freeing the "good side" of market-mechanisms that maximise efficiency and lower costs.

Edit:
Also, as you seem to have some expertise in this arena, what is your take on Blum's "Alcohol Can Be a Gas" - locally produced, non natural-gas produced, ethanol as a competitor to oil? Given the waste-product's use as animal feed, equal or superior to its inputs (which are currently used), it seems to me that only vegetarians can reasonably argue against this additional means to push down the cost of energy. But if there is a gaping hole in his analysis, I'd like to know about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Divernan (Original post)

Sun Sep 8, 2013, 08:07 PM

2. American politicians will sell their grandmothers for big oil....

eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mike_c (Reply #2)

Sun Sep 8, 2013, 08:15 PM

3. Hell, you could frack/drill through their grandmother's grave.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Divernan (Original post)

Sun Sep 8, 2013, 09:05 PM

4. This is ridiculous

There is a severe lack of pipeline capacity between Alberta and US refineries, the fact that Cushing and Steele are linked by a pipeline doesn't change that. Trans-Canada would also be sued to within an inch of liquidation if they diverted capacity away from the midwest refineries that the original Keystone pipeline was built to serve in favor of the Gulf Coast.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sen. Walter Sobchak (Reply #4)

Sun Sep 8, 2013, 10:30 PM

6. Not severe enough for me. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Divernan (Original post)

Sun Sep 8, 2013, 11:08 PM

7. K/:(

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Divernan (Original post)

Mon Sep 9, 2013, 02:20 AM

9. "pipelines always get built", wherever there is demand



Most people aren't aware of what we've built already.

Demand requires delivery, and you get far more complaints about the price of gas or heating oil, or a line at the gas station than one more pipeline. That's been the rule for some time. It would be nice to think that there will be a turning point, but I'm more inclined to think that it will be when people stop driving and stop consuming so much of the stuff, not when a single additional pipeline is opposed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bhikkhu (Reply #9)

Mon Sep 9, 2013, 01:06 PM

11. Your last sentence is spot on.

"...it will be when people stop driving and stop consuming so much of the stuff, not when a single additional pipeline is opposed."

No change until then.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread