Harper warned not to pester Obama about Keystone in Mexico
bootlegga @ Tue Feb 18, 2014 10:17 am
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
Centre Centre:
American officials have already bluntly warned Harper...
You don't do that kind of sh*t to one of your best friends and this f*cked up regime wouldn't even dream of doing that to China, North Korea, Iran, or etc.
Curious, are liberal Canadians still in love with the Magic Negro?
Allies do it all the time - Dubya was politely asked not to mention BMD when he visited in 2005 (but he did anyways).
Typically though, the more powerful one can get away with it while the other just has to suck it up.
bootlegga @ Tue Feb 18, 2014 10:20 am
stratos stratos:
After Obama's election did you see news casts of protests against the war(s) going on all over America? Did you see the mob of people outside state capital buildings like when Bush was in office? Oh wait I know you seen those marches down US. city streets in protest of the war once Obama was elected. If you did it might be time to talk to someone about the illusions you witnessed. 
Why would you protest after electing a President who committed to withdrawing them (and subsequently did)?
The only reason for Democrats to protest would be if he DIDN'T live up to his promise.
Given that he made the withdrawls a priority and got them started, there wasn't really a reason to protest.
Jabberwalker @ Tue Feb 18, 2014 10:20 am
Nobody will touch Dubya with a barge pole. Who would want to be "branded' with the worst president in history?
BartSimpson @ Tue Feb 18, 2014 10:41 am
bootlegga bootlegga:
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
Centre Centre:
American officials have already bluntly warned Harper...
You don't do that kind of sh*t to one of your best friends and this f*cked up regime wouldn't even dream of doing that to China, North Korea, Iran, or etc.
Curious, are liberal Canadians still in love with the Magic Negro?
Allies do it all the time - Dubya was politely asked not to mention BMD when he visited in 2005 (but he did anyways).
Typically though, the more powerful one can get away with it while the other just has to suck it up.
Politely asked and warned are substantially different things.
commanderkai @ Tue Feb 18, 2014 12:31 pm
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
I don't have to address it. My point is that opposition to the Keystone pipeline or for environemtnal issues in general is not the sole purview of wing nuts and radicals. That was my only point.
Really? I just pointed out that organized, large environmental NGOs are against Keystone XL, and their motivations behind their opposition cross into radical territory. I don't have the resources to contact the 30-40% of those in the polls who are against Keystone XL, so the next best bet is seeing how NGOs and politicians react, and it's not a comforting sight.
$1:
Persoally, I'm a scientist and engineer myself--I'm not going to look to Greenpeace or PETA for policy options. The Pembina Institute in Canada does some good thinking, in my opinion. I haven't seen a LIberal platform for energy policy yet, but I don't much like the Conservative one. The NDP one is OK. I actually quite like Stephane Dion's approach--the idea of turning environetmnal protection to a competitive advantage--but obviously he wasn't very popular.
Why are you taking this personally? This isn't about you. You're not the posterboy for the American environmentalist movement. Just because you aren't giving money to the various environmental NGOs I listed before, does not discount said NGOs as being some of the largest environmental organizations in the United States, with significant resources to bring to bear. With their active members, plus their financial supporters, they can claim that they better represent portions of the environmentalist movement than just you, and certainly have the resources to sell their agenda.
Zipperfish @ Tue Feb 18, 2014 2:20 pm
commanderkai commanderkai:
Really? I just pointed out that organized, large environmental NGOs are against Keystone XL, and their motivations behind their opposition cross into radical territory.
You described American support for Keystone as overwhelming--it isn't. You characterized those who opposed Keystone as extreme--they aren't necessarily. As stated, I will continue to challenge this Conservative narrative that environmentalists are a radical fringe group.
$1:
Why are you taking this personally?
I'm stating my personal views, which is kind of the entire purpose of this site. I don't think that's taking it personally.
andyt @ Tue Feb 18, 2014 6:09 pm
The protesters for Keystone are not all radicals, but they sure all seem dumb. What exactly is the issue with it? A few of them might be concerned for environmental damage of the pipeline. OK, hold the govt's/company's feet to the fire on that. But what about all the other pipelines out there, and the fact the oil will just be shipped by rail instead - how is that better? The oil isn't going to stop, because the very people protesting the pipeline (among others) are going to keep using it. Keystone is also not going to stop the oilsands, and trying to stop the oilsands while consuming oil is pretty stupid.
So they're mostly not radicals, but they mostly seem like dumbasses to me. That's not true for the protesters at every environmental protest - some have merit.
Jabberwalker @ Tue Feb 18, 2014 9:21 pm
There seems to be a perception down in the States that Keystone is somehow mostly for the benefit of us furriners. They don't seem to realize that American energy self-sufficiency is really reliance on a safe and reliable Canadian source. Would they rather keep fighting wars in the Middle East or put up with a pipeline or two?
Zipperfish @ Tue Feb 18, 2014 9:33 pm
andyt andyt:
The protesters for Keystone are not all radicals, but they sure all seem dumb. What exactly is the issue with it? A few of them might be concerned for environmental damage of the pipeline. OK, hold the govt's/company's feet to the fire on that. But what about all the other pipelines out there, and the fact the oil will just be shipped by rail instead - how is that better? The oil isn't going to stop, because the very people protesting the pipeline (among others) are going to keep using it. Keystone is also not going to stop the oilsands, and trying to stop the oilsands while consuming oil is pretty stupid.
So they're mostly not radicals, but they mostly seem like dumbasses to me. That's not true for the protesters at every environmental protest - some have merit.
So they're mostly not radicals, but they mostly seem like dumbasses to me. That's not true for the protesters at every environmental protest - some have merit.
Some of it is pretty silly. The health hazards are vastly overrated. Heck, the Deepwater Horizon was one of the largest oil spills in history, and it's been diffiuclt to find much in the way of serious effects. I thought that there would be substantial aqutic toxicity due to the extensive use of surfactants to solubilize the oil, but it never seemed to materialize, or hasn't yet.
Dilbit is a little different than most oils--it's more corrosive and can sink (which would be particularly problematic for spills impacting aquifers). But spills are relatively rare from pipelines.
commanderkai @ Tue Feb 18, 2014 9:42 pm
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
You described American support for Keystone as overwhelming--it isn't. You characterized those who opposed Keystone as extreme--they aren't necessarily. As stated, I will continue to challenge this Conservative narrative that environmentalists are a radical fringe group.
No, I didn't, I said it is opposed by extreme leftist political interests in the United States, which, from what I can see from the expressed statements from some of the largest environmentalist NGOs who are opposed to Keystone XL, isn't exactly hard to argue. I don't remember ever claiming that all opposition to Keystone XL was extremist, but certainly the Obama administration is catering to extreme left environmental NGOs, one of the biggest forces in the anti-Keystone XL movement.
On top of this, from the bipartisan support of Keystone XL in Congress in a number of votes, consistent support of Keystone XL from the US general populace over years, the support of the governors where Keystone XL will be built...overwhelming isn't too difficult to argue.
Zipperfish @ Tue Feb 18, 2014 10:31 pm
commanderkai commanderkai:
No, I didn't, I said it is opposed by extreme leftist political interests in the United States, which, from what I can see from the expressed statements from some of the largest environmentalist NGOs who are opposed to Keystone XL, isn't exactly hard to argue. I don't remember ever claiming that all opposition to Keystone XL was extremist, but certainly the Obama administration is catering to extreme left environmental NGOs, one of the biggest forces in the anti-Keystone XL movement.
On top of this, from the bipartisan support of Keystone XL in Congress in a number of votes, consistent support of Keystone XL from the US general populace over years, the support of the governors where Keystone XL will be built...overwhelming isn't too difficult to argue.
On top of this, from the bipartisan support of Keystone XL in Congress in a number of votes, consistent support of Keystone XL from the US general populace over years, the support of the governors where Keystone XL will be built...overwhelming isn't too difficult to argue.
I think we're just covering trodden ground at this point.
rickc @ Tue Feb 18, 2014 11:23 pm
andyt andyt:
The protesters for Keystone are not all radicals, but they sure all seem dumb. What exactly is the issue with it? A few of them might be concerned for environmental damage of the pipeline. OK, hold the govt's/company's feet to the fire on that. But what about all the other pipelines out there, and the fact the oil will just be shipped by rail instead - how is that better? The oil isn't going to stop, because the very people protesting the pipeline (among others) are going to keep using it. Keystone is also not going to stop the oilsands, and trying to stop the oilsands while consuming oil is pretty stupid.
So they're mostly not radicals, but they mostly seem like dumbasses to me. That's not true for the protesters at every environmental protest - some have merit.
So they're mostly not radicals, but they mostly seem like dumbasses to me. That's not true for the protesters at every environmental protest - some have merit.
I'm bored so I will play devils advocate. (full disclosure: I'm pro energy. I invest a ton of money in new fracking tech, horizontal drilling, energy services companies, etc.) If you think that the opponents of the Keystone pipeline are dumb, then do you also think that opponents of a pipeline through B.C. are dumb as well?
andyt @ Wed Feb 19, 2014 12:55 am
rickc rickc:
andyt andyt:
The protesters for Keystone are not all radicals, but they sure all seem dumb. What exactly is the issue with it? A few of them might be concerned for environmental damage of the pipeline. OK, hold the govt's/company's feet to the fire on that. But what about all the other pipelines out there, and the fact the oil will just be shipped by rail instead - how is that better? The oil isn't going to stop, because the very people protesting the pipeline (among others) are going to keep using it. Keystone is also not going to stop the oilsands, and trying to stop the oilsands while consuming oil is pretty stupid.
So they're mostly not radicals, but they mostly seem like dumbasses to me. That's not true for the protesters at every environmental protest - some have merit.
So they're mostly not radicals, but they mostly seem like dumbasses to me. That's not true for the protesters at every environmental protest - some have merit.
I'm bored so I will play devils advocate. (full disclosure: I'm pro energy. I invest a ton of money in new fracking tech, horizontal drilling, energy services companies, etc.) If you think that the opponents of the Keystone pipeline are dumb, then do you also think that opponents of a pipeline through B.C. are dumb as well?
Nope. The concerns about the high chance of a marine incident in Douglas channel make sense to me. I'm not against the Northern Gateway pipeline. Like all projects, including Keystone, I want it built to the highest standards and want the onus of cleanup costs to be totally on the company. The line should run to Prince Rupert instead, where there is already a deep water port and much easier route to open water. I do think the opponents who want no pipeline no matter what are dumb, yes. We do need to move that oil and it's better to ship it to China than the US.
If the Keystone protests were about the environmental dangers of the pipeline, to ensure that it's well built, and, as I say, the company takes all the financial risks of a spill, I would support them. That's not my impression of what the protesters want.
Zipperfish @ Thu Feb 20, 2014 10:42 am
The Globe and Mail: Obama unswayed on Keystone as Harper rebuffed in Mexico
$1:
Prime Minister Stephen Harper was again rebuffed in his bid to press U.S. President Barack Obama to approve the controversial Keystone XL pipeline when he raised the issue during a North American leaders’ summit in Toluca, Mexico.
Mr. Harper discussed the matter with his U.S. counterpart during a one-on-one conversation on Wednesday afternoon before a formal summit with Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto. Canadian officials have expressed frustration with Mr. Obama’s delays on the matter and are concerned that a final decision could come too late for this year’s construction season.
more
Mr. Harper discussed the matter with his U.S. counterpart during a one-on-one conversation on Wednesday afternoon before a formal summit with Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto. Canadian officials have expressed frustration with Mr. Obama’s delays on the matter and are concerned that a final decision could come too late for this year’s construction season.
more
The Globe and Mail: Nebraska judge deals Keystone setback to TransCanada
$1:
A Nebraska court decision Wednesday has thrown another hurdle in the path of TransCanada Corp. as it pushes for U.S. approval of the controversial Keystone XL pipeline.
A Nebraska district court decision struck down the law that paved the way for the pipeline’s construction in the state is being viewed as another significant setback for TransCanada, which has been pushing for project approval from the Obama administration for more than five years. The company had been buoyed last month by a U.S. State Department environmental impact statement that concluded that the approval of Keystone XL – which would transport oil sands crude from Alberta to Texas – would have little impact on the pace or scale of oil sands development, and hence on the amount of greenhouse gases emitted into the atmosphere.
But U.S. landowner concerns about the project remain. On Wednesday Lancaster County Judge Stephanie Stacy ruled a law that allowed the proposed Keystone XL oil pipeline to be routed through the state was “unconstitutional and void.” Landowner groups opposed to the pipeline project say the law in question had allowed Nebraska Governor Dave Heineman to approve the pipeline route, and enabled TransCanada’s use of eminent domain – or a compulsory purchase order – in its dealings with Nebraska landowners for pipeline easements.
more
A Nebraska district court decision struck down the law that paved the way for the pipeline’s construction in the state is being viewed as another significant setback for TransCanada, which has been pushing for project approval from the Obama administration for more than five years. The company had been buoyed last month by a U.S. State Department environmental impact statement that concluded that the approval of Keystone XL – which would transport oil sands crude from Alberta to Texas – would have little impact on the pace or scale of oil sands development, and hence on the amount of greenhouse gases emitted into the atmosphere.
But U.S. landowner concerns about the project remain. On Wednesday Lancaster County Judge Stephanie Stacy ruled a law that allowed the proposed Keystone XL oil pipeline to be routed through the state was “unconstitutional and void.” Landowner groups opposed to the pipeline project say the law in question had allowed Nebraska Governor Dave Heineman to approve the pipeline route, and enabled TransCanada’s use of eminent domain – or a compulsory purchase order – in its dealings with Nebraska landowners for pipeline easements.
more
DrCaleb @ Thu Feb 20, 2014 11:10 am
andyt andyt:
Nope. The concerns about the high chance of a marine incident in Douglas channel make sense to me. I'm not against the Northern Gateway pipeline. Like all projects, including Keystone, I want it built to the highest standards and want the onus of cleanup costs to be totally on the company. The line should run to Prince Rupert instead, where there is already a deep water port and much easier route to open water.
If you read the proposal for the pipeline, they considered that route. The frequent landslides and rock slides through those valleys make that route more likely to cause a pipeline fracture and major oil spill.