Canada loses patience on Keystone XL, tells U.S. to decide

[Eugene]

Source: Reuters

Canada loses patience on Keystone XL, tells U.S. to decide

OTTAWA Thu Jan 16, 2014 1:23pm EST

(Reuters) - Canada bluntly told the United States on Thursday to settle the fate of TransCanada Corp's proposed Keystone XL pipeline, saying the drawn-out process on whether to approve the northern leg of the project was taking too long.

The hard line comments by Foreign Minister John Baird in Washington were the clearest sign yet that Canada's Conservative government has lost patience over what it sees as U.S. foot-dragging. Ottawa strongly backs the project.

"The time for Keystone is now. I'll go further - the time for a decision on Keystone is now, even if it's not the right one. We can't continue in this state of limbo," Baird said in a speech to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

U.S. President Barack Obama must rule on the northern leg of Keystone XL, which would carry crude from the Alberta oil sands in Canada to the U.S. Gulf Coast.

[font size=1]-snip-[/font]

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/16/us-usa-pipeline-idUSBREA0F1DT20140116

[OregonBlue]

1. It was rejected in Canada.

“One of the most significant arguments in favor of the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline was shattered by a major announcement from the British Columbia government formally rejecting the proposed Northern Gateway tar sands pipeline,” the Natural Resources Defense Council said in a statement. “This announcement puts to rest the claim that tar sands development is inevitable.”

The defense council noted that the British Columbia government had raised the point that oil sands bitumen, even diluted, does not necessarily behave like conventional crude in a spill, that it interacts differently with the environment and could be more difficult to clean up.

“The B.C. government’s detailed submittal to federal government decision-makers was also noteworthy in recognizing there is growing evidence that diluted bitumen could pose additional risks to water and is more difficult to clean up,” the Natural Resources Defense Council said in a statement. “In light of British Columbia’s rejection, the U.S. State Department should revisit its previous findings that the Keystone XL poses no risks to water or climate which were based on faulty assumptions about the behavior of tar sands oil and about the role that Keystone XL will play as the major driver of tar sands strip-mining and drilling.”

http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2013/06/07/british-columbias-enbridge-pipeline-rejection-could-raise-keystone-xl-questions-149786]

They don't want their dirty oil. Don't try to foist it off on us.

[rdharma]

2. Righties in Canada demand that the USA decides on Keystone?

OK....... NO!!!!! How about that?

[EconGreen]

6. I might catch hell for this...

but this is one of the very few aspects that I disagree with our party on. My career field is energy economics, so this is a story I follow very closely and I just can't get on board with the position most democrats seem to take.

Reason being, this pipeline is actually going to be a net positive for the environment. And before you immediately dismiss that claim, hear me out.

Bottom line is, we use WAAAAYYYYY to much oil; not even the most hardheaded republican can deny that. And the really unfortunate aspect of this reality is that we appear to be no where near changing this behavior. So when considering whether or not to approve this pipeline, we need to do so within the context that the U.S. is going to continue importing oil. And if we are not importing it via pipeline from Canada, we will continue to import it via tanker coming in through the gulf.

If we assume no disasters, the one-time environmental impact of actually building the pipeline is significantly less than the longterm, constant trudging of gigantic tankers through the gulf. Beyond that, when we consider what the worst case scenario is between a pipeline land spill and a tanker ocean spill, it's not even a question. Spill's on land suck, yes. But the cleanup required is nowhere near the insane difficulty or cost of cleaning a deep water spill. Either way we consider it, the pipeline is better for the environment than the tankers.

Neither option is good.

But the pipeline is still better. It just needs to be done with extreme caution and sparing no expense. The government needs to approve this project, but they also need to take great care to ensure that no corners are cut. As long as that happens, the pipeline is greatly preferable to a tanker every day of the week.

[rdharma]

7. Fifth post? Welcome, EconGreen!

I also have a masters and a couple assorted bachelors degrees.

[EconGreen]

8. Thanks!

Not sure what message you were trying to convey with the eye roll, but regardless, thanks!

[rdharma]

9. Oh! You're very welcome!

[EconGreen]

11. Care to elaborate

I also have a masters and a couple assorted bachelors degrees.

Not sure why that's relevant to the conversation?

I'm gather that you greatly disagree with my position, to the point you find it laughable. I would enjoy hearing more about your position on the subject. And I certainly think that would be more productive than simply posting passive aggressive emoticons. Just one man's opinion though

[rdharma]

13. "I'm gather that you greatly disagree with my position"

[EconGreen]

15. Fair enough

If you ever feel like sharing, I look forward to hearing your thoughts. But if that never happens, enjoy life!

[rdharma]

16. Enjoy your time on DU!

[GeorgeGist]

10. ship it to vancouver.

[cprise]

12. Welcome to E/E

I have a feeling that having you around is going to be interesting...

While insisting on the status of the status quo, however, you may want to consider the kind of reputation that economists carry around here.

[EconGreen]

14. Thanks for the Welcome!

And what reputation do economists have here? Pardon the ignorance that accompanies my short history here. Thanks!

[cprise]

23. Economists

...are trained to think of the Financial sector as the fulcrum of society, and tend to project that conceptual relationship into the natural world. This frequently leads to scenarios where processes and relationships that cannot be expressed in dollars are eliminated from consideration.

For instance, there is no price tag placed on a "clean up" effort for greenhouse gasses, so your view omitted emissions entirely even though the most prominent climatologist in the world has singled out Keystone XL as a "game over" threat to life on earth.

The political economy that flows from this systemic denial is the one where GMOs are approved with no ecological basis whatsoever, and climate researchers are routinely threatened... increasingly by plutocratic government.

TL;DR... Economists behave as if the environment is dependant on economics, not the other way around. In requiring the dollar as the measure of all, they have become a pseudo-scientific movement.

[NickB79]

17. Not this tired analogy again

Sorry for not being as nice as the others who've responded in this thread to your post, but people have been trotting out this "logic" for years now. Not just with oil, but a whole host of other environmentally damaging resources and/or methods of resource extraction.

It is analogous to a meth addict saying "well, I acknowledge that I smoke entirely too much meth, but since I don't plan on doing anything to give up meth in the future, I might as well cook my own so it's not quite as bad as the stuff I buy on the street corner."

Saying the pipeline is better than the alternatives, given what we know about the state of climate change and the carbon emissions associated with tar sands oil extraction, is like arguing that a 9mm bullet to the head is better than a 10mm bullet to the head, because the 9mm bullet is somewhat smaller.

EITHER OPTION LEAVES YOU DEAD.

[EconGreen]

18. No offense taken

I enjoy arguing, so no need to apologize for being brash.

That said, I disagree with your analogies. Both situations are unquestionably bad, but they are not equivalent. Sure, the idea of the extraction itself could be considered equivalent to our current importing methods, but the extraction can not be part of our consideration. Canada is preforming these extractions. That happens with or without Keystone and we have no ability to control it. The only thing we do have the ability to do is control where it goes.

So from our perspective, the only consideration is transportation externalities, not the ones arising in production. So from where we sit, it's not really substituting one meth for another; it's substituting meth for coke. It's not two different caliber bullets to the head; it's one to the head verse one in the leg. Both could kill us, but the probabilities are not the same.

I'm all for eliminating our dependence on oil, but the way to do it is not through an all or nothing paradigm; progress is still preferred to stagnancy. Bottom line is, oil is going to be extracted from the tar sands and Canada will export it somewhere. We can't stop that.

I'd rather they export it here via Keystone than for us to continually to ship our oil in from oversees, as the effects of those two scenarios very greatly.

[kristopher]

19. Let's look at your posi

Your position:
"this pipeline is actually going to be a net positive for the environment"

1) We use ... too much oil

2) we appear to be no where near changing this behavior

3) the U.S. is going to continue importing oil. ...from Canada ...or via tanker coming in through the gulf.

4) assume no disasters,
4.a) the one-time environmental impact of ...building the pipeline is < the longterm, constant trudging of gigantic tankers through the gulf.
4.b) the worst case scenario between a pipeline land spill and a tanker ocean spill,
4.b.1)Spill's on land ... cleanup required ... nowhere near the ...difficulty or cost of cleaning a deep water spill.

Conclusion: ...the pipeline is better for the environment than the tankers.

Caveats:
A) It ... needs to be done with extreme caution and sparing no expense.
B) ...government needs to ... ensure ... no corners are cut

Underlying assumptions you've included:
a) the extraction can not be part of our consideration (because) Canada is preforming these extractions.
a.1) That happens with or without Keystone and we have no ability to control it. The only thing we do have the ability to do is control where it goes.
b) from our perspective the only consideration is transportation externalities, not the ones arising in production.

This is largely in your own words, pared down and organized for clarity.

I see a number of very tenuous assumptions and that would be extremely difficult to support. I also see several important considerations that are omitted from your analysis. Assuming I haven't missed anything, would you like to critique your own work?

[EconGreen]

21. Sure, why not

This is a very simplified overview of what is a very complex global market, so I definitely agree that there are many considerations omitted. That said, this covers the main points, so for the purpose of not developing entire essays on an internet forum, I'd say this is an appropriate list to begin our considerations. If you think there is something conclusion altering that is left out, I'd welcome hearing it.

In addition, the caveats may not be able to be guaranteed. There is not guarantee that the pipeline will be built well and the government may have limited abilities to absolutely ensure no appropriate production. That said, at this point in the process with the discussion being so highly politicized, TransCanada now has a VERY high incentive to make sure this thing goes off without a hitch. Every governmental oversight which can be enacted should be, but at the same time, TransCanada knows that any hitch in this pipeline will cause enormous backlash after the painstaking process to get it approved, so that concern is largely mitigated.

In addition, because I don't know how picky you want me to be, I'll note that I keep using the word "oil" when what would actually be transported are various crudes and dilbit. Just for clarification.

Finally, in the assumptions, my explicit statement was that building the pipeline caused a one-time environmental impact when this is an over simplification. There would probably be come continual impact from the pipeline even if no spill/catastrophe occurred. But I maintain that this is a negligibly small impact when considered against the alternatives.

And just for clarification on point 4, I want to make sure that you are reading that the same way I meant it. The point of that argument is that under the two primary scenarios we should consider (everything goes as planned vs. something goes very wrong) the pipeline is more environmental friendly than continuing current business as usual. I think it reads that way, but I just want to make sure that was conveyed appropriately.

But that's all I'm seeing upon doing this organized read through (thanks for compiling in an orderly fashion). And even with those imperfections in my statements, I maintain the validity of my conclusions. That said, I'm greatly looking forward to you tearing this apart and correcting the errors of my ways

[kristopher]

22. OK, let's see where we are...

"this pipeline is actually going to be a net positive for the environment"

1) We use ... too much oil

2) we appear to be no where near changing this behavior

3) the U.S. is going to continue importing oil. ...from Canada ...or via tanker coming in through the gulf.

4) assume no disasters,
4.a) the one-time environmental impact of ...building the pipeline is < the longterm, constant trudging of gigantic tankers through the gulf.
4.b) the worst case scenario between a pipeline land spill and a tanker ocean spill,
4.b.1)Spill's on land ... cleanup required ... nowhere near the ...difficulty or cost of cleaning a deep water spill.

Conclusion: ...the pipeline is better for the environment than the tankers.

Caveats:
A) It ... needs to be done with extreme caution and sparing no expense.
B) ...government needs to ... ensure ... no corners are cut

Underlying assumptions you've included:
a) the extraction can not be part of our consideration (because) Canada is preforming these extractions.
a.1) That happens with or without Keystone and we have no ability to control it. The only thing we do have the ability to do is control where it goes.
b) from our perspective the only consideration is transportation externalities, not the ones arising in production.

First what is on your list:
1) True
2) What time frame are you looking at?
What predictions are you using to base future demand on?
What policies are at work to change the slope of the demand curve?

3) What makes you think the ultimate market for the tar sands crude is US consumption?

4) Why would a serious analysis assume that? We've been operating pipelines for a considerable amount of time, surely there are statistics available for both pipelines and ships to inform the matter.

4.a - 4.b.1 This can only be determined with the statistics you've omitted however, the idea that a dilbit spill is automatically less harmful than a spill from a tanker isn't a credible claim. For example, how do you clean dilbit out of a river after the diluting agent evaporates? What is the potential for health problems from the volatile chemicals used to dilute the bitumen?

In short, your conclusion obviously isn't sustainable with the analysis you've presented.

Caveats 1) & 2) Not possible. The only thing you can include in the analysis would be "best practices" of the industry. That level of competence would be reflected in the statistics on pipeline quality and safety.

Assumption a), a.1), & b) You assume that the lack of a pipeline will not impact development of the tar sands in Canada. I don't believe that is a well founded assumption.

Not only can and should them impact of extraction be part of the analysis, but the analysis should include a complete life-cycle impact analysis. While it hasn't been traditional to include the full life-cycle, it is the recommendation of most energy policy analysts to bring external costs into the equation whenever possible, not only because it is just good science, but also and especially in this case because of the desperate global situation re AGW.

As fossil fuel use developed there were no real alternatives, but modern technology provides a variety of viable approaches that can move us away from carbon. That situation demands a full accounting of the heretofore externalized environmental and heath costs associated with the use of fossil fuels in order to perform a legitimate comparison to the alternatives.

So not only are the impacts outside of the country relevant, but because of the long term commitment this represents and the changing nature of technology for transportation, it really should look at the potential impact of new technologies on future demand.

I think that also addresses your clarification re better than business as usual.

Let me remind you that our best climate scientists are warning us that we MUST leave most of the remaining fossil fuel reserves in the ground. If you aren't factoring that need into the equation, you are adopting the profit driven point of view of the fossil industry. I, and everyone I know of on this forum categorically reject that as a legitimate basis on which to make the decision.

Hope that helps.

[cprise]

24. I would also like to draw an inconvenient comparison

...between 'EconGreen's position and that of the pro-nuclear lobby. Allow me to paraphrase:

But nuclear power is still better. It just needs to be done with extreme caution and sparing no expense.

IOW, if we walk on eggshells and keep our Rube-Goldbergs lined up just-so and eschew corruption while implementing this thing, we can have a better outcome.

[2naSalit]

3. Canada is no longer

the "docile friend" we once perceived to our north.

Tell them "NO! If you don't like it... bugger off!"

[Joe Shlabotnik]

4. well, USA?

You gonna take that shit from Canada? Tell Canada to fuck off then.

[MFM008]

5. Lets go to war with Canada.

They are closer, they have resources we can exploit...they speak the lingo....
Harper can take his XL and shove it up his pipeline.....

[kristopher]

20. Where's John Candy when you need him? nt