Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: Become a Podcaster | Find a Show
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2012 the authors
Syndicate
Keystone XL pipeline a 'job killer', will pump jobs into U.S. says labour leader
"It's clear to us that the majority of Albertans and the majority of Canadians would like to see us move up the value ladder with our oilsands resources, rather than sell our resources south of the border in their raw form," he said.
Feds not only want to export more oil south, they want Canadians to pay for the pipeline conduit used to pump thousands of jobs to the U.S. along with it. It's what they do. Welcome to Pipeline-istan the Northern Puerto Rican version. DAY O!
If you're in Ottawa next Monday, don't forget the protest on Parliament Hill!
Well I don't think you are ignorant; I think coy is the word. You may be a small investor, but we both know how much it costs to buy and sell shares. There is a world of difference between our "mom and pop" business world and people who are living on credit and food banks, or people who don't even have schools, proper medical care, or clean water to drink.
As for your talk about upgraders and production, who says we can't build more upgraders, and who says we have to scoop it out of the ground as fast as the Americans can suck it out the other end of the pipe? It seems to me that is their problem, not ours.
Frankly, I am a bit more concerned about burning up all our natural gas processing that tar and no longer being able to afford to heat my home than I am about keeping American business fat and happy, and keeping their upgraders running.
And I'm a bit more worried about the people who have to live with the environmental fallout, and the social problems in those boom towns.
This actually has very little to do with socialist ideals. It is bad business. I think it is a short-sighted, destructive, and it makes no economic sense.
Of course management and investors who want nothing but to make a quick buck are going to love it. So I am not surprised by your sales pitch at #92 and #99 in the last thread - that Canada has nothing going for it but resources, that we have no high tech industry, and that no one with a PhD would want to live here, that Big oil is the only bright spot in our economy, and that we should be happy to take their money for the next few decades until the tar is all gone, without any thought to what happens afterwards.
I'm not surprised, but neither am I stupid, and I don't buy a word of it. You only have to look at the nearest dead mill or mining town to see where that ends.
So sorry if I think there might be some options other than throwing the machine into high gear and sending it all south with all the jobs.
The only way to diversify our economy to something other than resources is to keep those jobs and build communties here, rather than just getting the table scraps from companies which are making far more in profits.
Or maybe you're right about my town. Perhaps we should go turn the lights out at the synchrotron, shut down the new germ lab, and put our straw hats and rubber boots back on, cause I guess we ain't fooling no one.
Oil-sands opponents to descend on Parliament Hill
Protesters are threatening to cross the RCMP’s security perimeter Monday and “sit down in a symbolic way to stand up against the Canadian tar sands,” echoing a series of protests in which 1,200 people were arrested in front of the White House last month.
Parliament Hill livecam
HillCam 1 - HillCam 2 - HillCam 3
Good interview with Tantoo Cardinal, but the CBC interviewer was out of her depth.
Well I don't think you are ignorant; I think coy is the word. You may be a small investor, but we both know how much it costs to buy and sell shares. There is a world of difference between our "mom and pop" business world and people who are living on credit and food banks, or people who don't even have schools, proper medical care, or clean water to drink.
I don't think I'm being coy - although it is a significant improvement on the usual handles the faithful bestow upon me. Circumspect is apt. To avoid attracting the more volatile types and their less than reasoned responses.
The 'world of difference' is a question I've asked many times to no response. How do the anti - eevil tar sands folks plan to address the needs of the vulnerable when the rising costs of energy, especially subsidy-driven renewables, will dictate a 4 fold rise in cost if there is no growth in public revenues? Face it, Canada has a resource-based economy and no amount of navel-gazing about an information technical economy will change that.
The Salvation Army is a regular visitor under my bridge as I appear to be the go-to-guy when crisis appears.
As for your talk about upgraders and production, who says we can't build more upgraders, and who says we have to scoop it out of the ground as fast as the Americans can suck it out the other end of the pipe? It seems to me that is their problem, not ours.
We are building upgraders, just not enough. Upgraders are very capital intensive and exporting bitumen will generate the capital to allow more upgrading when there is a business case to do so. Frankly, Canada doesn't have the capacity to upgrade all the production coming on stream.
Frankly, I am a bit more concerned about burning up all our natural gas processing that tar and no longer being able to afford to heat my home than I am about keeping American business fat and happy, and keeping their upgraders running.
No need to be concerned about NG resources, we have enough for centuries and you won't be able to afford to heat your home in any regard so, don't worry, be happy.
Keeping American business fat and happy is the reason for the funding largess to anti 'tar sands' groups. Funding Canada's 'useful idiots' to defeat Keystone is a prime objective of American interests who wish to keep Canadian oilsands products prices depressed by holding it hostage at Cushing Oklahoma. Without competition, the Americans can extract a 20% discount.
Whaddaya think the public revenue share of that 20% discount could do for social spending?
And I'm a bit more worried about the people who have to live with the environmental fallout, and the social problems in those boom towns.
The environmental fallout needs to be addressed but don't the consumers get to share in the process? Canadians have to suffer from Chinese,Indian, American and other sources of coal-fired pollution. Why don't we get to share ours?
Since the 2008 crisis, most workers are living in camps or on LOA, not moving to the areas. They are flown back and forth every 3-4 weeks and come from all over Canada.
This actually has very little to do with socialist ideals. It is bad business. I think it is a short-sighted, destructive, and it makes no economic sense.
How so? The fact that the eeevil tarsands will contribute $2,5 trillion to Canada's GDP over the next 20 odd years makes a rather compelling case State your case, please.
Of course management and investors who want nothing but to make a quick buck are going to love it. So I am not surprised by your sales pitch at #92 and #99 in the last thread - that Canada has nothing going for it but resources, that we have no high tech industry, and that no one with a PhD would want to live here, that Big oil is the only bright spot in our economy, and that we should be happy to take their money for the next few decades until the tar is all gone, without any thought to what happens afterwards.
Hmph, this Ottawa protest is doing nothing for making a quick buck. Rather than politely lining up to be helped over the fence, arrested and having their photo taken, these protesters should make a ruckus. Riot and mayhem may depress the price to book ratio for oilsands cos enough for cashed up vultures to day-trade a quick buck but this oh,so Canadian protest does nothing.
I'm not pleased that Canada does nothing to attract excellence and innovation in order to create an information technology focussed economy but the facts are that our GDP (and by extension, our ability to fund social programs) is dependent on resources. Australia does have the requisite beaches for PhDs and they are not doing too good diversifying away from resources either.
I'm not surprised, but neither am I stupid, and I don't buy a word of it. You only have to look at the nearest dead mill or mining town to see where that ends.
Historically, it ends with the mining entity leaving the mess behind after they have spirited the profits elsewhere. The only difference between projects is how much profit they are FORCED to leave behind. Paying off politicians and apparatchiks is cheaper than paying for public infrastructure and the cleanup.
I'm not stupid either - you are no doubt aware that it is the peoples' representatives, not me and my ilk who allow the corporations such leeway.
So sorry if I think there might be some options other than throwing the machine into high gear and sending it all south with all the jobs.
Right. The first option is to get the politicians' hands out of the cookie jar and force them to act in the best interests of their constituents.
The only way to diversify our economy to something other than resources is to keep those jobs and build communties here, rather than just getting the table scraps from companies which are making far more in profits.
Yeah, well, simplistic populist-driven solutions to complicated issues offer no lasting benefit. Most of this eevil tarsands opposition is emotion-driven cutting off the nose to spite the face stuff. What Canada needs is a comprehensive environmental strategy AND an energy policy that will allow Canadians to enefit from both Good luck with that, though.
Energy communities are being built and expanded with the emigrants of functioning communities that are in economic decline. What is better - workers living in their towns and travelling to work or moving out of their hometowns altogether?
Or maybe you're right about my town. Perhaps we should go turn the lights out at the synchrotron, shut down the new germ lab, and put our straw hats and rubber boots back on, cause I guess we ain't fooling no one.
Or, hitch up your britches, get an oilfield job that pays lots and fly out for 3 weeks on, 3 weeks home.
I already run my own business Roscoe, so please stop talking to me like the rube you imagine everyone who disagrees with your argument to be.
Though frankly there are plenty of people who aren't that stupid regardless of how they sustain themselves, I have more respect for the gentleman who lives up the street in the park because he is actually making more of a contribution to cleaning up this neighbourhood and making this a better place.
You insult us personally, and you insult our country, and then you propose something that is just a ripoff. What do you expect?
And my case is pretty simple, and one you don't seem to have read the numerous times it was posted already - increasing income through value added. And if we aren't sucking it up fast enough, I have to ask - fast enough for whom? Would natural gas prices be as volatile as they are if they weren't in such high demand for the highly inefficient process of rendering down tar into oil?
But then again, if your motive is pushing the maximum profit for investors, why would you want to acknowledge that we can make far more money over a far longer stretch of time by processing and keeping the jobs here in Canada, that a high GDP does not necessarily translate into a higher standard of living, that our goal should be a more diversified economy, and that we might want to protect our own future sources of energy?
Since this is a tentative project, it seems to me it is your place to make the case, and all I see is the offer of a quick buck to sell the farm.
And you know what Roscoe, I don't want you to think I am getting all socialist on you, because this has nothing to do with your economic beliefs.
But some of your slurs about handouts, and telling me to get a job are frankly pissing me off. And I have no idea what you mean about being the Salvation Army's go-to guy. But it all sounds like a pretty discriminatory attitude about poor people, as well as a slur by using that imagery against people who happen to see things differently than you.
I'm reporting this to the mods. Again, please don't use this as an excuse that people don't want to listen to your politics. I just think you are being really insulting
I already run my own business Roscoe, so please stop talking to me like the rube you imagine everyone who disagrees with your argument to be.
Sorry, Smith, I'm not talking to you, I'm talking to the guy in the straw hat and gumboots.
Though frankly there are plenty of people who aren't that stupid regardless of how they sustain themselves, I have more respect for the gentleman who lives up the street in the park because he is actually making more of a contribution to cleaning up this neighbourhood and making this a better place.
Yeah, so is the guy under the bridge.
You insult us personally, and you insult our country, and then you propose something that is just a ripoff. What do you expect?
Awfully thin-skinned,what? I don't mean any insults personally or specifically. Insult our country? How so? What ripoff?
And my case is pretty simple, and one you don't seem to have read the numerous times it was posted already - increasing income through value added. And if we aren't sucking it up fast enough, I have to ask - fast enough for whom? Would natural gas prices be as volatile as they are if they weren't in such high demand for the highly inefficient process of rendering down tar into oil?
The oilsands is already increasing income through value-added. As I've previously mentioned, capital-intensive projects require capital - who is going to pony up the hundreds of billions of $ required to build all this value-added? Obviously, not the anti-eevil tarsands crowd although the irony is that they quite likely are through their pension plans.
But then again, if your motive is pushing the maximum profit for investors, why would you want to acknowledge that we can make far more money over a far longer stretch of time by processing and keeping the jobs here in Canada, that a high GDP does not necessarily translate into a higher standard of living, that our goal should be a more diversified economy, and that we might want to protect our own future sources of energy?
My motive, as previously stated, is to increase both the public and private wealth in Canada in order to invest in the social programs and public resources required to maintain our standard of living.
Since this is a tentative project, it seems to me it is your place to make the case, and all I see is the offer of a quick buck to sell the farm.
I have been making my case but you don't respond to it
And you know what Roscoe, I don't want you to think I am getting all socialist on you, because this has nothing to do with your economic beliefs.
But some of your slurs about handouts, and telling me to get a job are frankly pissing me off. And I have no idea what you mean about being the Salvation Army's go-to guy. But it all sounds like a pretty discriminatory attitude about poor people, as well as a slur by using that imagery against people who happen to see things differently than you.
I'm reporting this to the mods. Again, please don't use this as an excuse that people don't want to listen to your politics. I just think you are being really insulting
Perhaps I speak in an idiom that doesn't translate well. You are correct that you have no idea what I mean. Far from having a discriminatory attitude toward 'poor people', my concerns with killing off industry for emotional, ideological reasons relate directly to the need for public revenues to support social programs. I donate a lot of resources to social causes precisely because I know very well what poverty is like.
You spend more time complaining than addressing the issue. I guess trying to demonise me just shows you can't refute my position.
The tarsands and civil disobedience
On Monday I will be joining hundreds of fellow Canadians on Parliament Hill to demonstrate growing public opposition to the relentless expansion of the tarsands megaproject in northern Alberta. Some will participate in a protest rally while others will engage in acts of peaceful civil disobedience....
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/article/1059109--the-tar...
Hi Roscoe, you're right. We can't refute your "position." But this site isn't here for you to pump gas for the tar sands. If you don't have any better advice than applying for a job with Imperial Oil, you'll be on our way out. And this mocking of babblers stops right now too. I hope that's clear. If you want to post defences of the tar sands, go elsewhere. Here, it ain't welcome.
Hi Catchfire. As I understand it, this issue has only one side and any expression of support for a position other than opposition to the 'tarsands' is verboten.
I come by my idealism and altruism honestly and agree with most of the progressive positions on issues but reality is much different than the fey aspirations of the faithful. I try to cultivate my socialist side but the deluded aspirations of the faithful have nothing to do with the advancement of progressive policy.
You rush to join the chorus This chorus sees my position as "pump gas for the tar sands" without any attempt to either acknowledge the concerns I raise about the industry or the impact on public revenues. No response to pointed questions, just evasions via outraged denunciations of myself as ignorant, troll, paid industry shill etc.
It is disappointing that those who seize the moral high ground cannot also have the courage to look at oth sides of the issue. To me, it is very heartening to see single moms, natives, high risk youth and other vulnerable individuals as well as the underemployed from all areas of Canada enjoying high paying jobs that are not available elsewhere.
The resource industry, not merely the oilsands, floats all boats and it is disappointing that progressives who love to speak their support for the vulnerable are so willing to throw them under a bus without any regard for their welfare when an opportunity to showcase their moral superiority with a photo-op presents itself.
Amongst all the hand wringing and hysterical denunciations of the eeevil tarsands, not one word is ever spoken about Venezuela or California's heavy oil issues; Saudi Arabia's increasing dependence on heavy,sour oil or especially, the increasing use of lignite coal for power generation.
The direction and impetus of this site to censor and stifle open debate in favour of cheerleading your pet causes is only one more indication of why you causes gain no traction with the general population. It isn't the MSM or the lack of funding or the inability to get the word out. The simple fact is the majority of Canadians have no interest in your causes because you only accept one side as gospel and incessantly preach to the choir rather than having the courage to openly debate the issues.
I really appreciate the even handed, thoughtful posts of some babblers but many show the same sort of closedminded witchhunting that pervades this site.
Good luck with lost causes and thank you for your admirable restraint. Good bye.
Bye Roscoe!! I for one will not miss your pro-industry diatribes against all who disagree with your tar sands boosterism.
"simplistic populist-driven solutions to complicated issues offer no lasting benefit. "
Increasing our carbon footprint for its social benefit is about as simplistic a solution to a complicated issue as any I can imagine.
Obama's Pipeline Mess
Industry Sources Admit Keystone XL Key to Tar Sands Development
October 31, 2011
Canada's Financial Post - the premier business magazine of Canada - published an article detailing how the escalating pressure to stop Keystone XL is causing investors in the tar sands to reconsider their long term plans for exploiting the world's second largest pool of carbon. Organizing by environmental justice advocates across the country has put the Keystone XL pipeline in question, which in turn has revealed just how important the pipeline would be to the development of the tar sands industry.
Here is the key conclusion from the Financial Post - read the whole thing here.
The upshot for Canada: a decision on whether to grant a Presidential permit, promised by year end, could once again be delayed.
The reality is that anything short of a go-ahead in December for Keystone XL would plunge the oil sands sector into disarray until new solutions move forward. The worst-case scenario? Stranded oil sands - for years.
....
All signs point to the President's decision on Keystone XL as being a turning point for the Alberta tar sands. The entire industry and all future US regulatory decisions have been deeply impacted by concerted organizing from the environmental movement, suggesting a hard road ahead for further exploitation of this deadly resource.
Geniuses!
Source.
Yep, we can see it all now. Capitalists and their dogs are standing around the snooker table, smoking cigars and sipping port wine at the Peninsula Club and muttering to one another: Who were the fools who designed an economic system based on energy and byproducts from dead plant matter? By gum!
Tim Fernholz - a former Democratic strategist, was just on P&P saying the American unions are pressing Obama to approve XL because of the jobs they believe it will produce, and that concern about jobs in the US far outweigh any environmental concerns they have about this pipeline. He believes Obama will give his approval to the project.
This will probably get me into trouble, but, since northern Alberta represents 0.1 percent of global greenhouse emissions wouldn't we be left with 99.9 percent of the problem if they were shut down tomorrow?
Few people in Canada are calling for the tar sands to be shut down completely as far as I know, but do want this project heavilly regulated and prevented from expanding. NDP candidate Mulcair himself said something along the lines of it's dumb to think of shutting the tar sands down, but he wants the federal government to stop subsidizing the project. I think many Europeans, on the other hand, want the tar sands shut down completely, and cleaned up.
Why the f*ck does the Canadian government subsidize profit making corporations anyway??? They don't need the subsidies or tax breaks.
I think what Albertans might want to ask themselves is why thier buddy Stephen Harper is stabbing them in the back by exporting refinery jobs to Texans at the expense to Albertans.
I mean, I'm against the pipeline for environmental reasons, but if that doesn't float your boat, then maybe Harper's treachery does.
The State Department has now called on TransCanada to do an environmental assessment of alternative routes for the pipeline. This will take at least a year.
Thus Obomba ensures that he won't have to announce approval of the pipeline until after the 2012 election.
Yes, that's all over the news. Premier Redford of Alberta is flying down to Washington to try to speed it up, citing what she says is Alberta's current green washing of the project, and the need of the USA for "ethical" oil from Canada. I guess Redford hasn't been doing any reading recently - when Alberta tar sands crude is refined in Texas, it will be sold overseas and other places. Very little of it will remain in the US.
I'm watching CNN. The Dems and GOP are making a deal to get the payroll tax break and unemployment insurance extended, and in return Keystone XL will be approved - by New Year's Eve. 2012 is going to be a bad year for environmentalists.
ETA: Link
The Obamaniacs have been telling us for the last three years that their man's hands are tied because of Republican intransigence and obstruction, and offering that up as an excuse for his right-wing agenda.
If suddenly the two mirror-image capitalist parties in the U.S. ever got together and agreed on something, it would pretty much have to be something along the lines of Keystone XL - a plan to make piles of money while destroying the environment in the process.
Hail the spirit of bipartisanship!
I wonder how much money Obama gets when he gives his approval to the deal that includes Keystone? CNN was predicting it could be as early as New Year's Eve, unless Obama grows some cojones in the meantime.
Green Groups Outraged at Accelerated Pipeline Plan
quote:
The State Department, which has authority in this cross-border project, suggested then that looking at new routes for the pipeline would take until early 2013 at the earliest. The department had previously said it hoped to make a final decision this year.
As opponents of the deal marshaled their forces, a policy analyst said that even if the president does approve this deal to force a decision on the pipeline in two months, the State Department would be unable to conduct an analysis of the proposed new route by then.
"There's almost no way the State Department can meet the requirements of the law in that brief time," said Daniel Weiss of the Center for American Progress.
"The president will have little choice than to not approve the permit. If he were to approve the permit anyway it would not survive a court challenge."
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/12/16-12
So, what reason is there to support Obama now in 2012? Just because the Republican alternative is worse?
Obama found a way what a surprise? I hope nobobdy believes a word out of that liar's mouth from here on out.
Actually, Obama is being forced to swallow a 'poison pill' according to what I heard on CNN.
I wouldn't assume from that story that that is what is going to happen. And from what I understand it is not a deal, but a deadline on the decision.
This is something the Republicans are pushing; Obama has not indicated that he would accept it, and according to the last sentence in epaulo's quote it would make no sense for him to do so.
The only thing in this story is that the spokesperson "left open the possibility". What that really means (according to this story) is that he just did not mention the pipeline:
http://www.omaha.com/article/20111217/NEWS/712179890
The senate vote is this morning. I guess we will find out very soon if the president will agree to make his final decision in the next three months (which may be yes, or no), or veto the bill.
So it passed the senate and is on its way to the house.
This has far more to do with the election than it does with Keystone, I'd say.
Senate Approves Short-Term Extension of Payroll Tax Cut, Gives Obama Two Months to OK Keystone XL Pipeline
Agencies are reporting that the Senate has passed legislation to extend the payroll tax cut and jobless benefits for two months. The legislation also included a provision requiring the White House to make a decision on the Keystone XL project in 60 days.
The measure was overwhelmingly approved with a 89-10 vote during a Saturday session.
Republican Sens. Bob Corker (Tenn.), Jim DeMint (S.C.), Ron Johnson (Wis.), Mark Kirk (Ill.), Jerry Moran (Kan.), Jeff Sessions (Ala.), Richard Shelby (Ala.) and Democratic Sens. Patrick Leahy (Vt.) and Joe Manchin (W.Va.), as well as Independent Bernie Sanders (Vt.) voted against the package.
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/12/17-0
I don't have the source in front of me, but apparently a white house spokesperson said this morning the ultimatum could possibly force Obama to cancel the project because there is not enough time for a review.
Whatever his intention was before this bill, this could mean very good news. I was assuming he would just move it past the election, and pass it then. If he is forced to kill it now, he can blame it all on the Republicans trying to force it on him prematurely.
If you think Obama wants to find a way to kill Keystone, I can offer you a very good deal on a slightly-damaged Washington Monument. It has plenty of parking and a great view.
Just relaying what the spokesperson said, M. Spector - a possible scenario which echoes that in the piece epaulo posted.
As I said in the post just before yours, I had assumed he would just move it past the election and pass it then.
So sorry, you'll have to find another easy mark.
This might change things (in which case it is probably good news for those of us who would like it killed) and it might not. But as I also said, I think this move on the Republicans' part has far more to do with causing shit for the election than it does with Keystone.
..my post in #30 #36 speaks to the process. i would not have posted them otherwise as i believe the odds favour the pipeline coming back. forces outside the government have been building for it to resume and the obama admin is all for it. for a second the government blinked feeling pressed by the enviiromental and the occup movement not to mention that the public doesn't like it one dam bit.
I agree. We should keep the oil and natural gas for ourselves.
Obama administration to reject Keystone pipeline
"However the administration will allow TransCanada to reapply after it develops an alternate route through the sensitive habitat of Nebraska's Sandhills".The latest report from the US is that there is nothing to report.
1. CBC just reported a new pipeline proposal could be approved in place of Keystone.
2. CNN just reported that Romney's position is to 'fast track' all energy projects (including Keystone) if elected Prez.
3. CBC just added that whatever replaces the original Keystone XL can be approved no earlier than 2013.
4. The GOP has just called Obama a "job killer" (on CNN) because of his earlier Keystone comments (the 60-day review).
On CNN now: WH spokesman Jay Carney is saying there are just rumours out there about Obama's response to Keystone so far today - nothing definite, but he hinted there may something later today.
"CBC just added that whatever replaces the original Keystone XL can be approved no earlier than 2013."
Obama's desperately wants to kick the can down the road until after the election. The problem for him is that prices at the pump are likely to rise in the spring. Which will put him on the political defensive as the Republicans start screaming, "drill baby, drill." Or perhaps this time, "pipe baby, pipe."
Yup.
CNN repporting State will make decision on XL at 315 eastern - in ten minutes. It will be pushed back until after the election apparently as the rumours are saying.
Does the Federal NDP have an official position on Keystone or the other pipeline through BC (and tanker traffic on the Pacific Coast)?
Keystone is dead for now but the company can submit a new proposal.
PMO: "The Prime Minister is extremely disappointed".
music to my ears, Good job Obama!
Obama's statement:
"This announcement is not a judgment on the merits of the pipeline, but the arbitrary nature of a deadline that prevented the State Department from gathering the information necessary to approve the project and protect the American people. "
Re: the statement
A perfect answer, since the deadline the Republicans pushed on him had nothing to do with the pipeline at all, but rather was nothing but a political ploy designed to fuck him up at election time.
The Great Pipeline Scam : When Will Environmentalists ever Wake Up? by Michael Leonardi
http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/01/19/the-great-pipeline-scam/
"In another ridiculous moment of political trickery, Obama managed to dupe a major chunk of the American environmental movement yesterday by refusing to authorize the construction of the Keystone Pipeline now. The key word in that sentence, which seems as if it is being largely ignored by the enviros is now,
because what Obama did do is leave open the possibility of authorizing the construction of a pipeline any tme in the future, say just a little after the election? Those who point out the truth about what is happening here are ridiculed, called unloving, unrealistic haters.
We are told to join the team or shut up. We are told we think too much and need to open our hearts. Many of these same people, when confronted with the reality of the National Defense Authorization Act deny completely that Obama signed indefinite detention into law. They say we are liars trying to defame their mythologized god of hope...
America is really lost and it is doubtful that it will every find its way."
"It is a sweet victory. President Obama has listened to his people and his better nature and rejected the Keystone pipeline...common sense has won the day." Maude Barlow
Has he duped anyone?
I think it is a success for the people in Nebraska concerned about their aquifer, but I thought Obama's position was pretty clear when he said he was was postponing the decision until after the election. DId anyone think his decision then would be anything other than approval?
In reaction to this latest news, almost every headline I have read on this has included a "for now" caveat.
Obama quite clearly said he did not turn this down based on the merits of the project, but because there was not time to do a proper evaluation within the deadline. The White House indicated they would consider a new application.
If someone wants to imagine that he said or intended anything other than that, that would be their problem.
If anyone got duped in this, it is those people who think the Republicans were in any way supporting the pipeline when they backed Obama into a corner. Had they not decided to play political hay that pipeline would still be on the table. We should thank them for killing it.
Again, regardless of what was eventually going to happen with the pipeline, this is all about the election.
CBC: and regulatoryTransCanada expects the new application to be fast-tracked because all the enviro work has been done except a tiny part of the new route and all the papers are already on file.
CBC: TransCanada expects the new application to be fast-tracked because all the enviro and regulatory work has been done except a tiny part of the new route and all the papers are already on file.
Has he duped anyone?
Maude Barlow, for one.
As I said quite clearly, M. Spector if anyone was mistaken about Obama, no one fooled them but themselves.
Not that I have any illusions about Obama being a completely progressive administrator, but on this issue he was quite transparent, and did nothing to capitalize on the situation. He said nothing at all against the pipeline. He turned down this application because he was forced to do so by Congress, but said he would welcome a new application.
He blamed the Republicans for initiating the whole thing, and in that I think he is entirely correct. Had they not orchestrated this showdown it would just have been tabled until after the election, and probably passed then.
If there's a covert conspiracy in there it is way over my head.
Chief at centre of tar sands battle has hopes set on Crown-First Nations gathering
video
APTN National News
Athabasca Chipweyan First Nation Chief Alan Adam is preparing a trip to Ottawa next week.
Now that the Obama administration has opted to block the proposed Keystone XL pipeline for now, he has high hopes for an audience with the prime minister.
Chiefs, however, have been told that Prime Minister Stephen Harper may not be present for the full meeting.
Democrats in the USA are either a bunch of total nitwits, or they truly believe Obama vetoed XL because he believes it's an environmental catastrophe in the making. Even Hillary Clinton was on CNN saying the same as Obama - the veto had nothing to do with the merits of XL, but rather the tight time frame given by the Republicans to evaluate it fully. And she said TransCanada can apply again for a new pipeline permit.
Obama is the best they can do.
Hes charming and likeable , and good looking and intelligent, what else is there not to like!
CFR: Examining Obama's Pipeline Decision
http://www.cfr.org/united-states/examining-obamas-pipeline-decision/p271...
"...In the near term, there is no pipeline constraint to bring oil from Canada into the United States, but one will be hit in perhaps five years, if the pipeline capacity is not improved. Then there is the issue of where you can get it to in the United States, because right now the way the infrastructure is set up, it doesn't take the oil to where it can be used in refineries as well as it should.
There have been some developments over the last few months, particularly the impending reversal of something called the Seaway Pipeline, which had taken some further pressure off and has made this decision on Keystone less consequential.."
This is the same president who in September 2011 withdrew tougher new ground-level ozone standards that had been drafted by the Environmental Protection Agency....
This is the same president who in May 2011 decided to delay a rule that would cut emissions from power plants at major industrial facilities. This month, a federal court scolded the Obama administration, ruling that the EPA had needlessly suspended implementation of what is known as the boiler MACT rule. The court called the delay “arbitrary and capricious.”
This is the same president who in March 2011 opened a large part of Wyoming to coal mining. “The decision was the carbon equivalent of opening 300 coal-fired power plants,” author and environmentalist Bill McKibben said.
This is the same president who, after a government-mandated moratorium on drilling that ended in the fall of 2010, has allowed the oil and gas industry to get back to business as usual in the Gulf of Mexico following the BP oil disaster that started in April 2010....
This is the same president who this month released a report praising the boom in U.S. natural gas production, despite the extensive environmental damage caused by the shale gas revolution in communities across the country....
This is the same president who touts endless economic growth, despite the fact we live in a world with finite “natural resources.” ...
This is the same president who decided during the summer of 2011 to delay finalizing new regulations for the disposal of coal ash and other coal combustion waste....
And this is the same president who continues to let the world’s worst polluter of all, the U.S. military, destroy communities and ecosystems around the world....
Little scraps of humanity
Cloak of Green - by Elaine Dewar
http://books.google.ca/books?id=ui2OTJqsqI8C&printsec=frontcover&dq=cloa...
'The Links Between Key Environmental Groups, Government and Big Business'
..a view from the top.
Things getting sticky in oil sands
With U.S. President Barack Obama’s extreme decision Wednesday to deny a permit to the Keystone XL oil sands pipeline, Canada’s oil-sands industry, one of the few engines of investment and job creation in North America, stands on the brink of a slowdown.
Export pipeline capacity is expected to run out by around 2016, throwing today’s growth strategies into serious doubt.
Keystone XL, and its all-Canadian alternative, Northern Gateway, were supposed to be the main solutions to transporting growing oil sands production to new markets.
Both are stuck.
To be sure, Keystone XL proponent TransCanada Corp. has been invited to apply for a new permit with a revised route that avoids environmentally sensitive areas in Nebraska. But the reality is that there will be no pipeline decision — and it could still be a ‘no’ — until at least after the November presidential election, and possibly longer....
http://business.financialpost.com/2012/01/18/things-getting-sticky-in-oi...
Gateway gate may be closing
quote:
At least three major stumbling blocks surfaced repeatedly in the review’s important first days that are likely to dog the $5.5-billion pipeline, which would carry product from the Alberta oil sands to this community on the northern West Coast, throughout the two-year review process: aboriginal opposition, little community buy-in and lack of trust that it can be built safely.
They are essential building blocks of any major development in Western and Northern Canada, from liquefied natural gas plants coming to this town, to oil sands projects in Alberta, to potash mines in Saskatchewan. Even the much-delayed Mackenzie Valley gas pipeline had them largely nailed down before Imperial Oil Ltd. and its partners moved forward with an application for regulatory approval.
Meanwhile, cross-border environmental groups that were expected to influence the hearings have been a non-issue so far. Demonstrations were discouraged by the Haisla, a peaceful band that hosted the review’s start and put forward the first witnesses.
Like the Haisla, First Nations on the coast and in the B.C. interior will voice concerns that the benefits offered to aboriginal communities do not justify the risks of an oil spill to their food sources.
Those who believe it’s a bargaining position are mistaken, said Ellis Ross, the elected chief of the Haisla....
quote:
The port city of Kitimat, which has received tanker traffic for the past 50 years to serve its industrial operations, used to be a champion of the pipeline. But it has chosen to be an observer of the review process, rather than a participant, as a result of the controversy surrounding it and division within the community. Mayor Johanne Monahan won’t even talk about it. She said council would decide whether to back it or oppose it after the review has been completed....
quote:
Enbridge claims that safety measures have been built into every aspect of the pipeline’s construction and operation, meeting or exceeding all applicable industry standards and government regulations, but its recent oil spill in the Kalamazoo River in Michigan, BP PLC’s spill in the Gulf of Mexico, and the Exxon Valdez disaster just up the coast, are undermining its message. Trust in its plans is also affected by a history of bad practices in the logging and other local industries that have depleted fish stocks and polluted the channel’s waters....
http://business.financialpost.com/2012/01/12/gateway-gate-may-be-closing...
Newt to PM: Don't Cut Oil Deal With China
http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/world/archives/2012/02/20120201-071...
"Newt Gingrich has once again promised to approve the Keystone XL pipeline immediately, if he becomes president in November. And he once again urged Canadians Tuesday, not to 'make a deal' with China to buy our oil instead.
He's done it three times in as many days..."
Texan Lawmakers Angry..
http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2012/02/texan-lawmakers-angry-that-canad...
"...that Canadian oil for the Keystone pipeline might go to 'our worst enemy'..."
Clinton Supports Keystone Pipeline
http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/Clinton+supports+Keystone+pipeline/6...
"Former president's backing hints at White House shift towards OK'ing deal. Suddenly the Keystone XL pipeline is all the talk of American politics again.."
Lakota Indians Block Keystone XL Pipeline' Trucks in Six Hour Standoff (and vid)
http://colorlines.com/archives/2012/03/lakota_indians_block_keystone_xl_...
"Five Lakotas on Pine Ridge Indian land in South Dakota were arrested Monday after attempting to block two tarsands pipeline trucks from entering their land. According to the Lakota activists the six hour standoff started when the trucks refused to turn around claiming they had 'corporate rights that supersede any other law.'..
not on Lakota land apparently...
"Former president's backing hints at White House shift towards OK'ing deal...."
What "shift"? The White House has always supported the Keystone XL pipeline.
Trains Roll From Canada to Gulf to Fill Void Left by Failed Keystone Pipeline
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03/20/trains-roll-from-north-to-fil...
"A Canadian railroad carrying millions of barrels of oil to Gulf refineries is hurtling full steam ahead through the Obama administration's block of the Keystone pipeline. The amount of oil Canadian Pacific Railways carries down through the heartland has surged 2,500 percent since 2009, to 8.5 million barrels per year from just 325,000.
The company expects to move 45 million barrels per year within the decade. The Calgary based railroad is one of two that carries oil down from Canada's tar sands, but Canadian Pacific also carries thousands of barrels per day to the Gulf from North Dakota's booming Bakkan Formation oil fields. Experts estimate shipping by rail instead of pipeline adds anywhere from $5 to $10 to the price of a barrel, not to mention the high-capacity 24-7 flow a pipeline affords..."
Looks like the pipeline will be built sooner or later. I wonder how much pressure is involved to ship product from northern Alberta to south Texas? These must be highly-pressurized pipelines. I posted a link a year or so ago that showed the final refined product will not necessarily benefit America but rather be sold overseas - refinery workers in Texas will benefit, but hardly anyone else, unless regulatory changes are made to keep tar sands oil refined in the US to stay in the US, and I've seen no signs of that happening yet.
Obama orders agencies to fast-track Keystone XL’s southern leg
Obama, facing election-year pressure to bolster the U.S. energy industry, said his new plan to fast track the southern leg of Keystone XL was a “common sense” move that would reduce an oil glut that is slowing U.S. refining....
http://business.financialpost.com/2012/03/22/obama-orders-agencies-to-fa...
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/05/07/sk-wall-mulcair-1205.ht...
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/05/07/sk-wall-mulcair-1205.html
Would it really be too much of a hardship to actually provide a hint as to what this link is about before expecting me to click on it?
Brad Wall was on P&P tonight saying Mulcair has it all wrong. He even mentioned that Ontario's McQuinty apologised for using the term 'petro dollar'. Basically Wall is just re-hashing Harper talking points.