Canada To Sell Their Oil To China If XL Pipeline Isn’t Approved Soon

@x-pipeliner, I agree that that the Keystone Canada-US pipeline is not nixed, but postponed. I will also say that that the reason it’s being done is for Obama’s political expedience, to appease his disgruntled enviro base. At a time when the economy is hurting, and this is the best example of a shovel ready project and jobs that isn’t financed by the taxpayer, it’s one dumb approach.

A response by the POTUS that the permits would be issued, conditional on the usual safety/construction regulations (obviously) would lend a degree of business confidence, and a widening of his very narrow and detrimental energy policy.

While oil may be sold on the world market, Canada is not an OPEC nation, and therefore not subject to their price control. Secondly, the US having a trade agreement with another western, free nation to it’s north is highly superior than a dependence on hostile nations elsewhere… most especially in the volatile Middle East.

Canada, in fact, will be sending their oil to other places besides the US.. including to their own eastern provinces. It was never an exclusive to US agreement, nor should be be. But the issue is whether the US will, indeed, be able to receive some of that oil supply. Apparently, if or when Obama feels secure in his political base’s support, he’ll likely give a go ahead. Tho now the Nebraska Gov wants a decision reversal from the POTUS. Nebraska and Transcanada had agreed upon a new route, and the Gov. had been wondering if Obama’s decision required the process to start a’new. And while the federal nod of approval enables them to begin segment construction on the other areas with other completed studies, it gives Nebraska time to comply with theirs without holding up the immediate jobs needed.

Sounds perfectly logical to me for business. Tho it doesn’t do much for Obama, attempting to reclaim cred with his enviro base.

I also don’t disagree that the pipeline’s construction and it’s impact on the environment should not be sidestepped. Who said that it should? No one has, per your words, advocated that we return to days when America“…dumped hundreds of thousands of a waste byproduct called gasoline out on the ground or into lakes, creeks and rivers, just so that they could sell kerosene for lamps.” Hyperbole and leaps into imaginary chasms much?

In fact, I don’t see any person here, or anywhere in the debate en toto, that suggests such a thing.

Because only about 10% of all the crude is transported by superships (tho when they have accidents, they are bigger than other spills), the majority of spills do take place on land, and to a small degree, offshore. Pipelines are not exempt from that in their spill history.

But the decades since the Alaska pipeline was laid have been instructive. Every thing from cheap steel that corrodes more easily, the temperature of the oil declining as it travels thru the pipeline to the source, and even how a declining flow rate thru the pipeline has resulted in new challenges that need to be met, and adequately dealt with. But that’s not an impossibility, and is likely to be a part of any final permitting process.

But there’s much to be said for pipelines since, if properly monitored, the spills can be detected early and the spill contained more quickly, minimizing the damage. Unlike Exxon Valdez, or an offshore deepwater well, pipeline flows can be stopped at the source more easily. Since transporting crude is always risky, pipelines have a particular appeal for being more controllable.

Since you say you are familiar with the Alaskan pipeline, I think you can also admit that the amount of spill, compared to the volume of oil that has flowed thru that pipeline over the decades is a very small percentage. And while you single out BP on the Deepwater Horizon, I’ll add that BP has had it’s fair share of problems with their involvement in Alaska’s pipeline as well.

But as I said, this is an industry that contains many risks. The clean up and litigation for not being careful far outweigh the profits in certain instances, so I hardly find it a completely cogent argument to suggest that the Gas and Oil industry would not make certain improvements for faulty design without government regulations. In fact, most regulations only occur after an accident. A company, when it defines an engineering flaw that can cost them an arm and a leg would be apt to correct it themselves in order to to repeat the expensive faced with accidents.

This particular pipeline is part of a larger issue if the shale is to be developed since transport to the refineries still needs to be improved as well. Keystone may well be only one of future pipelines the US will need to build in order to exploit our own natural resources.

And the price will come down… just as the abundance of natural gas has been driving the price down. The more readily available (and affordably transported) raw energy resources that are available, the better the pricing… and outside of the power of OPEC. This is simple supply/demand economics 101.

The Canadian source is needed and wanted, most especially since our Mexican supply is declining. I believe Transcanada knows that the Canadian supply is a favorable bipartisan issue. Thus why they will go ahead building the state segments of the pipeline that do not require federal approval (since they won’t be joining them “interstate” or “international” yet). That indicates a confident that they will ultimately get the approval from Obama, after he’s sucked his political use of the issue out of his base, or that a new POTUS will come along who won’t play politics with our affordable energy and trade policies.

You say that your objection was confined to the route and the environmental studies. As you are aware, the route was already changed to a lesser environmentally sensitive route. As for the studies, likely to be less impact than the original route, that was always going to be a condition for any final permitting. Additionally, there is already a panacea of pipelines going thru the area.

Point is, none of this is really about “studies”. It’s all about playing politics in an election year. And what pisses most of us off that Obama places his political career over the energy, fiscal and job policies of the nation.

@x-pipeliner, well I see you’ve re’emerged to double down on your accusation of racism because someone dares to not like this POTUS energy policies, perpetuate your fantasy career, and dodge what I pointed out in @my comment #67 that the POTUS could give the nod of approval so that other states could commence construction, and giving Nebraska their time to complete their new location enviro studies without holding up the project, jobs and faster end product.

You also didn’t bother to acknowledge that the entire financial risk would be an onus on Transcanada, and the US had nothing to lose with the construction, started in other states, being done by segment.

That is the way the interstate system came together. As I said before, left with your demonstrated “brilliance”, we’d still be working on finishing the interstate highway system if the project couldn’t start until all states had their ducks in a row with studies and permits.

But instead you come back and assume all of us love oil spills, which of course no one has suggested. But you do so try to steer to towards that distraction so you came huff and puff another smug, and erroneous, tirade.

Listen, genius… there is a difference when evaluating oil transport system, just as there is a difference with how different types of crude affect the environment in water, or on land…. i.e. whether it sinks, floats on the surface, whether the natural environment is friendly to natural clean up with rough water and bacteria that feeds on the oil, the amount of sunlight. Obviously what can be an advantage in the ocean for natural clean up under the right conditions is not necessarily applicable to land.

Not all oil, or transport system, or damage potential presents the same problems because no two are alike.

Pipelines also have their own challenges… under or above ground, vulnerability to sabotage or man made accidents (i.e. hunters shooting the Alaska pipeline), the length of the pipeline and inevitable cooling process, as it gets further away from the source, the wax build up, volume running thru the pipe, monitoring stations, quality of steel, resistance to natural corrosion, etc. But a pipeline can be easily turned off, limiting the damage, when the monitoring systems are adequate.

And you call yourself an expert on the oil industry?

Now, you can actually address the real issue… which is why the POTUS won’t allow the project to be started in stages now in the approved states, when we need it, at Transcanada’s risk (and none to the US). Or you can take your supposed circa 60 year old self back to your twitter “ppl” friends, play a video game, or watch another Berserk cartoon. Seems you fare better in a fantasy world.

Bees, the actor you are thinking of in the Men in Black series is the Texas actor, Tommy Lee Jones.

pseudo game boy pipeliner: Yes each state dose need to grant a permit for their segment of the job however because the job crosses not only state lines but international boarders a federal permit must also be acquired.

First, when you’re wanting to play the language game to demean people (er… “ppl”) , you don’t help yourself with your deplorable typing, spelling and punk twitter language (i.e. “does”/dose and “borders”/boarders). My suggestion is that you avoid arenas with us where you are obviously outclassed.

But congratulations for finally “getting it”. What have I been saying to you over and over? So let’s go back to what you did say about permits:

If you had the slightest knowledge of the permit process or just a modicum of common sense you would realize that the permit applied for was for the entire job not bits and pieces or dribs and drabs of the pipeline.

Trans-Canada is responsible of applying for the permits and it is not up to the POTUS to amend the permit only to disapprove or approve it as applied for by the owner of the projected project.

There is so little coherent in that babble that it’s truly embarrassing. Now, the next step in your education process…. exactly what is the State Dept’s permit for? Is it for, as you, the uninformed put it, “the entire project”?

Obviously the State Dept is not an agency of engineers or environmental specialists. They are not involved in the States’ processes, nor any eminent domain of lands (reserved to the States). The State Dept is not even the federal entity that would approve crossing of even federal lands in the states, or even the one for the State to State joinings.

So what’s their role in this? Do you even know?

Per the lips of the State Dept’s mouthpiece, Daniel Clune (Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau of Oceans and Environment – International Environmental and Scientific Affairs), the State Dept’s role is a simple yes or not decision as to whether they will allow the pipeline to cross the US Canadian border.

That’s it. Nothing more. They don’t oversee the construction, the safety, the States own regulations, nothing. Can you cross the international border, or not. End of story.

If you read something other than enviro sites to cut/paste crap from, and maybe used the State Department’s briefing records on this project over the years, you might actually know something other than parroting “I LOVE THE ENVIRONMENT and YOU DON’T! naaaa naaa nanaaa naaaaaa”

pffft… get in line, punk.

QUESTION (Elana Schor of Great Greenwire): I had two questions if possible. The first very simply,if the State Department decides not to grant this permit, would that be the first time ever such a decision has been made? Because some folks in town have been that they have looked at the records and seen this as the first case that could be a potential no. And the second question would be whether it’s possible to put any more conditions on this permit besides the 57 that you mentioned the company had agreed to?

MR. CLUNE: The – on the question of whether the State Department has denied a permit of this type before, I’m not aware of any, but that doesn’t mean that it hasn’t happened. We’ve been doing this at least since the Lyndon Johnson Administration, and we’d really have to dig through a lot of old files to figure out whether we’ve denied one of these in the past. I mean, the last two that came to us were the original Keystone Pipeline and the Alberta Clipper Pipeline and those were both granted.

[Mata Musing: in other words, he’s clueless, but he won’t admit to it…]

With respect to conditions, I should clarify that the 57 conditions that the applicant voluntarily agreed to will not actually be part of the permit. The permit is kind of a yes/no thing – yes, you can cross the border and no, you can’t. But the 57 conditions are a matter of public record, and the applicant has committed publicly to comply with those.

QUESTION: So it’s essentially a yes or no; that’s what the rules state, then?

MR. CLUNE: Yeah. In the past, we have included some conditions in the permit. And I mean, we’ll need to face this issue when the time comes.

Part of their consideration is whether it is in the nation’s national interest to do so. A secondary part is they will look at the environmental studies to see if any of that is *not* in the national interest.

Of the multiple States involved, all the studies have been submitted, approved and the States each have their ducks in a row. This has been going on since the end of 2008, and your hero in the WH promised that his State Dept would provide a response by the end of the year.

Nebraska’s alternate route is the only study that is left. That Nebraska, their legislative assembly, their Governor and Transcanada have agreed to find acceptable alternative routes, and provide updated studies, the *only* reason to hold up the State’s approve for crossing the US-Canadian international border is if they are banking on an unacceptable environmental study in a state that has already has massive amounts of existing commodity lines.

If the State Dept simply said that the pipeline can cross the border, it would then be a Transcanada financial decision as to spend money prior to the Nebraska enviro study’s submission to the State, or not. At worst case they would have to design around Nebraska entirely and that’s not likely to happen. As I’ve said, there are commodity pipelines already zipping thru Nebraska.

They’ve already said they’d go ahead and build in the approved states while they work with Nebraska on their updated study, and take that risk (because it’s low). That way when Nebraska crossed the finish line on their state’s issues, they would be much closer to actually using the pipeline to get a return on their investment.

Since you’re kinda slow on the uptake, let me repeat the obvious in short, small word, bulleted points

1: The State Dept (i.e. Obama) has the role only of approving the pipeline crossing the US/Canadian border, and they will base that on if that benefits the national interests (duh… no brainer there)

2: The only outstanding enviro study (which they assume relates to national interests) is from Nebraska, which already has massive commodity lines running thru it. So it’s highly unlikely there is no acceptable place to run an additional pipeline

3: A simple okay from Obama’s State Department can put people (or in your world of twitter language – ppl) to work within weeks in the other states where all the process/studies/legislation/ground work has been done.

4: If, for some reason, the State Dept wasn’t happy with anything sent on Nebraska, the one who loses their shirt is Transcanada since they’d have to route around Nebraska. Again, not likely which is why they would commence work. Meanwhile, thousands of jobs in multiple states would have been created, paychecks received… and yet not a drop of oil would ever flow thru the unused pipeline.

It’s called a win-win situation, gamer boy.

You say you “doubt” bankers would go along without the State approval? Well, of course they would… which is why Nebraska’s Governor and Transcanada want the State Dept to simply say, as they have for all other similar endeavors in the past, “sure, you can cross the int’l border.” That’s all that’s needed. Period.

Saying that doesn’t mean that Transcanada’s pipelines won’t have to meet the important criteria, as the other agencies and States require of them. It’s the equivalent of saying if you build it to the various regulations criteria, sure you can cross the border.

Simple, eh?

And of course they will eventually approve it.. probably in the month or so before the election so Obama can make it look like a magic break thru instead of an unnecessary delay.

And why am I so sure? Because Obama hired the former lobbyist for Transcanada for his election campaign last fall, and another Transcanada lobbyist was Hillary Clinton’s deputy chair of *her* campaign.

With the comfy, crony relationship to both the State Dept and to the POTUS himself, via their shared lobbyists, this is all politics… holding it up for a last minute election triumphant announcement while, in the meantime, he uses it to play his union base against his environmental base and consolidate support he’s been losing.

This is a POTUS who puts his own career before that nation’s fiscal and energy health.

What it’s *not* about is due diligence that will not successfully be done, and jobs that start immediately. By gosh… to let it go forward now – when both Republican and Democrats in Congress support this – destroys his “do nothing Congress” campaign slogan that he’s already banked on using (right next to evil and heartless capitalist pigs…) that he needs for his potential re’election/reelection/re election/re-election (happy now?).