Canada-US - Keystone XL pipeline proposal rejected

[Mazmaz]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/britis...-pipeline.html

TransCanada will apply again, CEO says
The U.S. government has denied an application by TransCanada to build the Keystone XL pipeline, the State Department announced Wednesday.

A statement released by the department said it doesn't preclude TransCanada applying again with a different route.

Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver said the government hopes a new TransCanada application will be approved, but Canada is going to look to other markets to sell its oil.

"It is clear that the process is not yet over," Oliver said.

"Our focus is, as you know, on diversifying our markets. We currently have one customer for our energy exports. That customer has said that it doesn't want to expand at the moment. So it certainly intensifies the broad strategic objective of the government to diversify to Asia."

A statement released by TransCanada said the company will submit a new application based on "the exhaustive" record compiled over the past three years.

"While we are disappointed, TransCanada remains fully committed to the construction of Keystone XL. Plans are already underway on a number of fronts to largely maintain the construction schedule of the project," said Russ Girling, TransCanada's president and chief executive officer.

"Until this pipeline is constructed, the U.S. will continue to import millions of barrels of conflict oil from the Middle East and Venezuela and other foreign countries who do not share democratic values Canadians and Americans are privileged to have," he said.

The company says it's working with the state of Nebraska to design a new route around an ecologically sensitive area and expects to have finished that process by September or October of 2012.

Alberta Premier Alison Redford said her government will do everything it can to support the Keystone XL project.

"It is good news, in our perspective, that TransCanada Pipeline has decided that they will continue with their application and file a new application," she said.

"I actually believe that it is entirely possible for this project to proceed."

Redford said she expects to travel again to Washington, D.C., to discuss the file.
Obama blames Republicans

A statement released by U.S. President Barack Obama put the blame on Congressional Republicans, who inserted a 60-day deadline for a decision on the pipeline in a December 2011 bill to continue U.S. payroll tax cuts.

"The rushed and arbitrary deadline insisted on by Congressional Republicans prevented a full assessment of the pipeline’s impact, especially the health and safety of the American people, as well as our environment," Obama said in the 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."

Even before the State Department made the announcement, Republican congressmen criticized the decision, saying Obama had chosen to "create jobs in China" rather than the U.S., as Canada turns to Asia for energy exports.

"The president's policies are making the American economy worse, rather than better," House Speaker John Boehner said, vowing Wednesday's announcement wasn't the end of the fight.

A statement from Prime Minister Stephen Harper's office said Obama phoned Harper earlier Wednesday afternoon.

"The president explained that the decision was not a decision on the merits of the project and that it was without prejudice, meaning that TransCanada is free to reapply," the statement said.

"Prime Minister Harper expressed his profound disappointment with the news. He indicated to President Obama that he hoped that this project would continue given the significant contribution it would make to jobs and economic growth both in Canada and the United States of America.

"The prime minister reiterated to the president that Canada will continue to work to diversify its energy exports."

Harper, Oliver and Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird had all said they supported the Keystone XL pipeline and that they would find alternate markets for Canadian energy if the U.S. isn't interested.

Harper is visiting China next month and is expected to discuss ways to increase trade.
U.S. fears over proposed route

The original proposal would have seen the pipeline run from Alberta through several states to the coast of Texas. It raised concerns in Nebraska because it would pass through an area that supplies drinking water to millions of people. The XL pipeline is an extension of an existing Keystone pipeline.

In November 2011, TransCanada agreed to change the proposed route so that it wouldn't pass through the environmentally sensitive Sandhills area of Nebraska, a move that would add up to 65 kilometres of pipeline and another pumping station to the project.

Last fall, U.S. officials said they would defer a final decision on the pipeline until the end of 2012 — after the next presidential election.

A spokesman for Environmental Defence congratulated people in Nebraska and across the U.S. who fought the pipeline.

"Today President Obama acted on the hopes thousands of Americans who stood up for a clean and safe environment in the face of intense pressure from wealthy big oil interests. We applaud his decision to reject TransCanada's proposed Keystone XL tarsands pipeline," Rick Smith said in a statement.

A statement issued by the Pembina Institute said decisions such as the one on Keystone XL are made based on a broad understanding of the issues and the public interest.

"President Obama has recognized the risks this project could pose to the health and safety of the American people and to the environment, and the need to adequately review those concerns. Due public process is critical to making an informed decision," said Ed Whittingham, Pembina's executive director.

"The denial of this project provides clear evidence that industry and government must do much more to address the impacts of developing and transporting oilsands — it's a signal from our customer that cannot be ignored."

In prepared remarks for a speech in Toronto earlier Wednesday, Baird said it was time to approve the pipeline "for the good of both our two nations."

"There are thousands of good paying jobs on both sides of the border that depend on the approval of that pipeline. And a process which normally takes 12-15 months has now carried on for more than 35 months," he said.

In an interview with CBC chief correspondent Peter Mansbridge earlier this week, Harper said it was clear that Canada had to diversify its trade beyond the United States after U.S. President Barack Obama said he would delay a decision on Keystone XL until the end of next year. That deadline would put a decision after the next presidential election.

"I think what's happened around the Keystone is a wakeup call, the degree to which we are dependent or possibly held hostage to decisions in the United States, and especially decisions that may be made for very bad political reasons," Harper said.

"It puts an emphasis on the fact that we must perform our regulatory processes to get timely decisions on diversification of our markets."

[archibaldcrane]

Why would Obama want to stop the flow of delicious maple syrup from Canada?

[Correction]

I hope Obama can keep stringing Republicans along to pass laws he wants by saying he'll 'continue to consider' the Keystone XL project.

[Mazmaz]

This forum sucks. This topic would've gotten like 50 replies on general.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

shoulda just made a sticky

[Demosthenes11]

one of the few things I am happy to see obama doing

[Jube]

How come all the people who are in favor for this because of the number of jobs it will create, pump up the number of actual people who will be hired to construct it. I have heard from 10,000 to 1 million jobs will be created. But the company that is going to build it has said repeatedly that it will only need 2000-3000 people to build it and then will only need a few hundred to maintain after that. These are the numbers that the company has come up with and have been consistent since day one. If what they say is true then all the people who say not doing it, is against job creation blah blah blah stuff. I really do not know I feel about this since I don't live where it will be built and also can not do heavy construction work. But I see the need if someone wants to make this happen that the jobs created because of it are going to be temporarily, maybe we should see if its even worth it or maybe do something to create jobs where it can be helpful. Like make a monument to boobs or something.

[Drex]

How come all the people who are in favor for this because of the number of jobs it will create, pump up the number of actual people who will be hired to construct it.

Do you really have to ask? This is politics.

[Jonny]

It's like the republicans running for president they keep calling Obama a socialist even tho he has been doing everything they fucking want.

It's so they look good in front of morons.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

one of the few things I am happy to see obama doing

Why?

[archibaldcrane]

Why?

Because oil sands pipelines are difficult to maintain and prevent spills from, the company who wants to build it has a horrible safety/environmental record, and refining oil sands is an extremely polluting process?

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S 4G using Tapatalk

[Demosthenes11]

Wouldn't the oil have enter the world marketplace anyways? lol

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Because oil sands pipelines are difficult to maintain and prevent spills from, the company who wants to build it has a horrible safety/environmental record, and refining oil sands is an extremely polluting process?

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S 4G using Tapatalk

Got sources? And if you screw up we should prevent your entry into the market?

[archibaldcrane]

Got sources? And if you screw up we should prevent your entry into the market?

Why do you want sources if you think a "screw up" shouldn't matter anyway?

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S 4G using Tapatalk

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

You made other claims as well, only 1 of which was, without any other information, dumb.

[archibaldcrane]

Oil sands petroleum produces 10-45% more GHG than normal petrol from crude:

Making liquid fuels from oil sands requires energy for steam injection and refining. This process generates two to four times the amount of greenhouse gases per barrel of final product as the "production" of conventional oil.[3] If combustion of the final products is included, the so-called "Well to Wheels" approach, oil sands extraction, upgrade and use emits 10 to 45% more greenhouse gases than conventional crude

Raw oil sands are like cold molasses. They barely flow at all, unless heated up or mixed with other hydrocarbons. The pipeline is charted to run within 10 miles of 60% of Nebraska's water wells through an aquifer providing fresh water to over 2 million Americans. The existing Keystone pipeline has had 14 separate spills since June of 2010, Keystone XL would be significantly longer and harder to maintain. Combine all that with a gladhanding corporate/political "regulatory" system, and you're looking at an environmental disaster waiting to happen.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Yet, did any of those spills poison the aquifer? Most of the spills were like 5 gallons, but one such spill was like 22,000 gallons, yet it didn't poison the aquifer. And there already 100's of pipelines criss-crossing the aquifer.

[archibaldcrane]

Um, the current Keystone pipeline runs over the Ogalla Aquifer in Nebraska?

Interesting, because I thought the controversy is that Phase 4 of the Keystone XL would be new pipe run over said aquifer, where the current Keystone pipeline does not run.

This phase is part of the Keystone XL pipeline and would start from the same area in Alberta, Canada as the main pipeline.[10] The Canadian section would consist of 529 kilometres (329 mi) of new pipeline.[12] It would enter the United States at Morgan, Montana and travel through Baker, Montana where domestic oil would be added to the pipeline, then it would travel through South Dakota and Nebraska, where it would join the existing Keystone pipelines at Steele City, Nebraska.[1] This phase has generated the greatest controversy because of its routing over the top of the Ogallala Aquifer in Nebraska

but hang your hat on the idea that the current pipeline, which doesn't run over the Ogalla Aquifer, hasn't poisoned the Ogalla Aquifer. It's quite an accomplishment.

Here's a visual aid:

http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Uploa...d-addition.jpg

The current pipe basically skirts the edge of the Ogallala Aquifer, the new one would cut right through the middle of it.

Here's the aquifer in question:

http://www.meteor.iastate.edu/gccour...ogallala/1.gif

[pohibaba]

If they altered the route of the pipeline, would you be for it?

[Demosthenes11]

can someone tell me, besides jobs, what good this pipeline does.