Canada to US.. 'fine, we'll sell our oil to China!"

[muttly]

That is so he can say exactly what you just said.

"Now wait a minute Mr Newt. That's not true. I approved drilling in North Dakota!"

(and that is about the only place)

Blind squirrel finds a nut once in awhile too. i

 

[muttly]

Unfortunately, the facts don't support your conclusions.

Maybe it was a political decision afterall. Warren Buffet Cleans Up After Keystone XL - HUMAN EVENTS

 

[Turtle]

Possibly, but by the time Buffet sees any kind of increase in rail traffic from the additional Tar Sands oil, the pipeline is likely to have already been approved. The only thing preventing this from being approved is the resubmission of the application with the corrected Nebraska routing. The artificial deadline legislation from Congress merely pushed things back a few months is all.

 

[cableguymn]

His administration also fast tracked some of the permits for the refinery here in the area, so it is odd that he would be so against oil.

So is it being built? Is the EPA holding it up? Is it tied up in court because of green peace or the such (they work hand in hand with the left)

He also lifted the drilling ban in the gulf.

Only one permit has been issued since.

 

[witness23]

Maybe this will shed some light on what went on and what is currently happening with the Keystone pipeline from a Canadian source. Maybe some of our Canadian brethren can let us know if the source is reliable or not.

link: Keystone XL: a timeline - Econowatch - Macleans.ca

Keystone XL: a timeline
by Gabriela Perdomo and Gustavo Vieira on Wednesday, January 18, 2012 5:52pm

For better or worse, it’s been roadblock after roadblock for North America’s most infamous pipeline. Here’s a look at that tortuous timeline:

February 2005 – TransCanada Corp. announces plans to spend $1.7 billion to build a 3,000 km pipeline to move heavy oil from Alberta to Illinois. About 40 per cent of the route would be a conversion of existing pipelines that carry natural gas to handle 400,000 barrels of heavy crude. TransCanada was expected to be operating the pipeline as early as 2008.

September 2007 – Despite strong opposition from the Canadian Energy and Paperworkers’ Union, who said the pipeline would drive jobs south of the border, the National Energy Board approves the construction of the Canadian portions of the pipeline.

October 2007 – After inking deals for the sale of 435,000 barrels of crude per day, TransCanada announces it plans to expand the project, raising total costs to $5.2 billion. Construction is scheduled to begin in the spring of 2008; the pipeline is expected to be operational by 2009.

March 2008 – In spite of opposition from environmental groups and those who live along the proposed route of the pipeline, the U.S. State Department gives the green light for the pipeline to cross the border, saying: “Canadian oil represents a safe, secure supply for the North American market.”

July 2008 – TransCanada announces a $7 billion expansion to its pipeline system, the Keystone XL project, to build a 3,200-km pipe linking Alberta’s oil to refineries in Texas. The line is expected to handle 590,000 barrels of oil a day and be operational in 2009.

_

March 2010 – Canada’s National Energy Board (NEB) approves the Keystone XL project. The Natural Resources Defense Council, a non-profit environmental group based in New York, issues a ****ing report of the Keystone, saying its construction its construction would run against efforts to increase reliance on clean energy sources. The State Department issues its Draft Environmental Impact Statement, which critics say lacks adequate information on a number of potential issues, including greenhouse gas emissions.

June 2010 – A group of 50 members of the U.S. Congress signs a petition addressed to Secretary of State Hilary Clinton calling on the administration to take into account “clean energy and climate change priorities” when studying the Keystone XL project.

July 2010 – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency criticizes the State Department’s Impact Statement, saying it lacks adequate information on greenhouse-gas emissions, air pollution, pipeline safety, as well as the project’s likely impact on wetlands and migratory-bird populations.

October 2010 – Secretary of State Hilary Clinton says she is “inclined” to approve the Keystone XL pipeline.

August 2011 – Protests erupt in Washington calling on the Obama administration to reject the Keystone XL pipeline. As many as 500 protesters, including celebrities like Darryl Hannah, are arrested during a sit-in in front of the White House. The State Department releases the final draft of its Impact Statement, which warns that, though no “major environmental risks” have been found, the project would negatively affect “certain cultural resources.”

September 2011– Archbishop Desmond Tutu, the Dalai Lama and seven other Nobel Peace Prize laureates write to President Obama urging him to reject the pipeline.

Early November 2011 – Public opposition to the pipeline intensifies. Media reports calculate that anti-Keystone protests in front of the White House have attracted as many as 10,000 protesters. President Obama announces that a decision on whether or not to go forward with the Keystone XL project will be postponed until 2013, or after the 2012 presidential election.

Mid-November 2011 – Keystone pipeline builder TransCanada and Nebraska governor Dave Heineman agree to re-route the pipeline in order to avoid the Sandhills and the Ogallala aquifer, two of the most contentious areas that the proposed pipeline would have crossed according to its original route. Nebraska pledges to approve any construction related to the pipeline. However, the U.S. Secretary of State has the final say on the pipeline’s route.

December 2011 – President Obama signs into law a bill to extend existing payroll tax-cuts. It includes a provision stating that the government must make a decision on the Keystone XL pipeline by Feb. 21, 2012. Republican members of Congress introduced the provision in the bill.

Jan. 18, 2012 – The State Department announces it will not approve the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline in its current form but will allow TransCanada to re-apply once it has devised a new route avoiding sensible ecosystems. President Obama says the decision is “not a judgment on the merits of the pipeline,” adding that it was forced by “the arbitrary nature of a deadline.” TransCanada says in a statement it hope to re-apply and have an in-service date of late 2014.*

*an earlier version of this article incorrectly stated that TransCanada hopes to re-apply in 2014.

 

[scottm4211]

Witness I don't know much about this story but Macleans magazine is pretty respected up here. It's not like it's a blog or anything.

 

[OntarioVanMan]

Macleans has been around a long time, conservative (Can. Standards) magazine...it is very good...

 

[layoutshooter]

We should be developing our own energy sources. The pipeline would help, but working our own reserves would be better. We can be free of ALL foreign oil in just a decade if we TRIED.

 

[witness23]

Thanks for the feedback.

I read some of their stuff and it seems to be reliable and sourced very well.

 

[layoutshooter]

Thanks for the feedback.

I read some of their stuff and it seems to be reliable and sourced very well.

Good posts, good source. Thanks.

 

[OntarioVanMan]

We should be developing our own energy sources. The pipeline would help, but working our own reserves would be better. We can be free of ALL foreign oil in just a decade if we TRIED.

In Hamilton they collect the methane from a huge landfill site and feed it to boilers which in turn heat boilers and the hot water is pumped to government/city offices for heat and they sell the excess to surrounding office towers as well....the initial outlay was expensive but is reaping benefits now...why just allow it to be burned off?

 

[layoutshooter]

In Hamilton they collect the methane from a huge landfill site and feed it to boilers which in turn heat boilers and the hot water is pumped to government/city offices for heat and they sell the excess to surrounding office towers as well....the initial outlay was expensive but is reaping benefits now...why just allow it to be burned off?

In the summer between my junior and senior years in high school I worked on "Mount Trashmore" in Riverview, MI. A landfill. That trash mountain produces a lot of methane now. Landfills are a good source of natural gas, a renewable energy resource.

 

[OntarioVanMan]

In the summer between my junior and senior years in high school I worked on "Mount Trashmore" in Riverview, MI. A landfill. That trash mountain produces a lot of methane now. Landfills are a good source of natural gas, a renewable energy resource.

a one time infrasture cost...and bingo...when I pass them eternal flames I think..what a waste of energy....it could also boil water for turbines to make electricity...it would be great.

 

[layoutshooter]

a one time infrasture cost...and bingo...when I pass them eternal flames I think..what a waste of energy....it could also boil water for turbines to make electricity...it would be great.

There a many ways to produce energy, we are just very short sighted. The Ford plant in Flat Rock, MI, gets most of the electricity it uses from gas produced at "Mount Trashmore". Too many naysayers and "in the box" thinkers out there. They are holding us back. As are corrupt governments, which all are, world wide.