Trying to avoid any political noise but a new Presidential permit has been issued for the stalled Keystone XL Pipeline. A judge in Montana had put the brakes on the first one.
New Presidential Permit for Keystone XL Pipeline
- Thread starter Snagglefoot
- Start date
- Status
Just curious on the process on this one.
What effect will issuing a new presidential permit have on the project?
edit..just read up on it here.
https://globalnews.ca/news/5111993/donald-trump-keystone-pipeline/
Seems like the permit is open to lawsuits, no surprise, so are we any further ahead to getting it built?
And this article says the permit may not be open to a challenge.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...-keystone-xl-pipeline-issuing-new-permit
As we wake up to a new Federal carbon tax on gasoline and other heating sources n Ontario.
Price of gas is up 4.4 cents per liter today to about $1.29 a liter in my area.
About 15 cents a gallon increase for our American friends to about $4.50 a gallon.
What effect will issuing a new presidential permit have on the project?
edit..just read up on it here.
https://globalnews.ca/news/5111993/donald-trump-keystone-pipeline/
Seems like the permit is open to lawsuits, no surprise, so are we any further ahead to getting it built?
And this article says the permit may not be open to a challenge.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...-keystone-xl-pipeline-issuing-new-permit
As we wake up to a new Federal carbon tax on gasoline and other heating sources n Ontario.
Price of gas is up 4.4 cents per liter today to about $1.29 a liter in my area.
About 15 cents a gallon increase for our American friends to about $4.50 a gallon.
Last edited:
I'll leave this to our good friends from the USA to interpret that.
The US seems to be flush with crude oil. Do we really need to get oil from the Canadian tar sands? I think we should leave it in the ground. Renewable energy and storage are coming on stronger every day.
When folks use the term "tar sands", I see the need to have a rational discussion on sources of oil and which sources are less harmful to use vs others.
Rockefeller Foundation and Tides sure did a great job of misinforming.
Rockefeller Foundation and Tides sure did a great job of misinforming.
Last edited:
4WD
$50 site donor 2024
Originally Posted by Snagglefoot
I'll leave this to our good friends from the USA to interpret that.
Having spent lots of time in both Canada and Mexico - for over a decade I have preached to do more within NAFTA and less with China ...
I think it has slowly been happening - but lots written about recent uptick during tough trade negotiations with China ...
I'll leave this to our good friends from the USA to interpret that.
Having spent lots of time in both Canada and Mexico - for over a decade I have preached to do more within NAFTA and less with China ...
I think it has slowly been happening - but lots written about recent uptick during tough trade negotiations with China ...
4WD
$50 site donor 2024
Originally Posted by Danno
When folks use the term "tar sands", I see the need to have a rational discussion on sources of oil and which sources are less harmful to use vs others.
Rockefeller Foundation and Tides sure did a great job of misinforming.
A-Harmon had a good response to this - but I don't recall the thread title ... ?
When folks use the term "tar sands", I see the need to have a rational discussion on sources of oil and which sources are less harmful to use vs others.
Rockefeller Foundation and Tides sure did a great job of misinforming.
A-Harmon had a good response to this - but I don't recall the thread title ... ?
Originally Posted by 4WD
Originally Posted by Danno
When folks use the term "tar sands", I see the need to have a rational discussion on sources of oil and which sources are less harmful to use vs others.
Rockefeller Foundation and Tides sure did a great job of misinforming.
A-Harmon had a good response to this - but I don't recall the thread title ... ?
It was in " Let's talk about the Canadian Oi Sands" I just gave it a bump. Check " Active Threads" Sorry I couldn't copy the link with my IPad. Maybe someone else can link it?
Originally Posted by Danno
When folks use the term "tar sands", I see the need to have a rational discussion on sources of oil and which sources are less harmful to use vs others.
Rockefeller Foundation and Tides sure did a great job of misinforming.
A-Harmon had a good response to this - but I don't recall the thread title ... ?
It was in " Let's talk about the Canadian Oi Sands" I just gave it a bump. Check " Active Threads" Sorry I couldn't copy the link with my IPad. Maybe someone else can link it?
I believe in a rational response to energy consumption. The USA is Canada's largest consumer of the oil sands. As carbon energy is being pushed aside a little by renewables and fracking has revitalized the domestic oil supply the oil sands are becoming a little marginalized. I have read that the mining of these sands is eradicating forests and scarring the land. I haven't personally seen this with my own eyes so I cannot comment on its veracity. There are already legal edicts in the Western United States prohibiting the transmission of power with a coal genesis into said states with complete prohibitions as early as 2030. I reckon oil fired and natural gas generated electricity will eventually follow. Pipeline capacity may become a moot issue. The pipeline in question will actually have few legacy jobs associated with it as it will be tankered out of Texas, its final terminus, to overseas customers. The handful of legacy jobs associated with the pipeline may not be worth the environmental issues that could occur in some sensitive areas if there were to be a breach. Do we need it? Not for our domestic use if fracking stays the way it is and the pace of renewables continues to grow at its present rate. Canada may want to build a pipeline to Vancouver, British Columbia to service the Asian market, probably money better spent.
Sarah Palin had it right with her "Drill Baby Drill". After Trump issued that order gas dropped 8 cent a gallon here in KY.
Originally Posted by sloinker
I have read that the mining of these sands is eradicating forests and scarring the land. Canada may want to build a pipeline to Vancouver, British Columbia to service the Asian market, probably money better spent.
There is scarring of the land but once the oil is recovered, the land is required to be replanted to reflect what was growing there previously.
There are initiatives on trying to get more pipeline capacity to tidewater (British Columbia and Eastern Canada), but seems the anti pipeline folks are well funded.
See my its all about the money post above.
The now dead, Energy East pipeline would have replaced middle east (saudi) oil now being shipped in by tanker to eastern Canada. Fierce opposition killed it. Follow the money is what I say.
I have read that the mining of these sands is eradicating forests and scarring the land. Canada may want to build a pipeline to Vancouver, British Columbia to service the Asian market, probably money better spent.
There is scarring of the land but once the oil is recovered, the land is required to be replanted to reflect what was growing there previously.
There are initiatives on trying to get more pipeline capacity to tidewater (British Columbia and Eastern Canada), but seems the anti pipeline folks are well funded.
See my its all about the money post above.
The now dead, Energy East pipeline would have replaced middle east (saudi) oil now being shipped in by tanker to eastern Canada. Fierce opposition killed it. Follow the money is what I say.
Originally Posted by Donald
The US seems to be flush with crude oil. Do we really need to get oil from the Canadian tar sands? I think we should leave it in the ground. Renewable energy and storage are coming on stronger every day.
So, the US gets to benefit financially from their natural resources, and Canada doesn't?
Typically self-centered 'Merican attitude!
The US seems to be flush with crude oil. Do we really need to get oil from the Canadian tar sands? I think we should leave it in the ground. Renewable energy and storage are coming on stronger every day.
So, the US gets to benefit financially from their natural resources, and Canada doesn't?
Typically self-centered 'Merican attitude!
Originally Posted by Donald
The US seems to be flush with crude oil. Do we really need to get oil from the Canadian tar sands? I think we should leave it in the ground. Renewable energy and storage are coming on stronger every day.
Got a problem with the worlds biggest environmental clean up?
The US seems to be flush with crude oil. Do we really need to get oil from the Canadian tar sands? I think we should leave it in the ground. Renewable energy and storage are coming on stronger every day.
Got a problem with the worlds biggest environmental clean up?
4WD
$50 site donor 2024
Originally Posted by CT8
Great news
Make NAFTA great again
Great news
Make NAFTA great again
Any word on what the export vs. U.S. domestic draw on this oil will be?? I'm sure the majority percentage of this oil coming to Houston and Port Arthur will be exported but how much of a majority?? I've seen figures close to 70%, so I would assume it's in that range. Like they've said for some time...it's basically oil through the U.S. ...not to it. You'd think that anyone presenting the XL Pipeline as a 40 cent a gallon drop in U.S. gas prices might either be a disingenuous liar or woefully uninformed.
Originally Posted by Vuflanovsky
Any word on what the export vs. U.S. domestic draw on this oil will be?? I'm sure the majority percentage of this oil coming to Houston and Port Arthur will be exported but how much of a majority?? I've seen figures close to 70%, so I would assume it's in that range. Like they've said for some time...it's basically oil through the U.S. ...not to it. You'd think that anyone presenting the XL Pipeline as a 40 cent a gallon drop in U.S. gas prices might either be a disingenuous liar or woefully uninformed.
Nearing 100% most likely, as the refineries in Houston, Port Arthur, etc., have a preference for heavier/sour oils, compared to the very light sweet, basically condensate, that comes from the shale wells.
Also access to low-cost Canadian feed will keep prices lower. Illinois, Minnesota, Wisconsin, etc., have enjoyed very low gas prices because the Koch's realized at an early point in the development of the resources in Canada that it'd make a lot of sense to feed their refineries with cheap Canadian feed.
Any word on what the export vs. U.S. domestic draw on this oil will be?? I'm sure the majority percentage of this oil coming to Houston and Port Arthur will be exported but how much of a majority?? I've seen figures close to 70%, so I would assume it's in that range. Like they've said for some time...it's basically oil through the U.S. ...not to it. You'd think that anyone presenting the XL Pipeline as a 40 cent a gallon drop in U.S. gas prices might either be a disingenuous liar or woefully uninformed.
Nearing 100% most likely, as the refineries in Houston, Port Arthur, etc., have a preference for heavier/sour oils, compared to the very light sweet, basically condensate, that comes from the shale wells.
Also access to low-cost Canadian feed will keep prices lower. Illinois, Minnesota, Wisconsin, etc., have enjoyed very low gas prices because the Koch's realized at an early point in the development of the resources in Canada that it'd make a lot of sense to feed their refineries with cheap Canadian feed.
Originally Posted by Donald
The US seems to be flush with crude oil. Do we really need to get oil from the Canadian tar sands? I think we should leave it in the ground. Renewable energy and storage are coming on stronger every day.
Its the wrong kind of crude oil though. That's the issue. Arguably its not even 'crude oil' in many cases, but rather is just natural gas condensate that masquerades as "oil".
The Canadian product is needed as a drop-in to refineries that were built to process Venezuelan and Mexican crudes that are increasingly no longer available due to the issues in Venezuela, or depletion in Mexico.
The US seems to be flush with crude oil. Do we really need to get oil from the Canadian tar sands? I think we should leave it in the ground. Renewable energy and storage are coming on stronger every day.
Its the wrong kind of crude oil though. That's the issue. Arguably its not even 'crude oil' in many cases, but rather is just natural gas condensate that masquerades as "oil".
The Canadian product is needed as a drop-in to refineries that were built to process Venezuelan and Mexican crudes that are increasingly no longer available due to the issues in Venezuela, or depletion in Mexico.
- Status
