Biden Plans to Revoke Keystone Pipeline

[SB Shock]

Biden has indicated that one of the first things they will do is revoke the Keystone Pipeline permits. Canada is freaking out a little.

"Blocking the Keystone XL expansion will jeopardize a key project for the Canadian economy which helps support thousands of Canadian families. Some 17,000 direct and indirect jobs are in play in Canada," explains Miguel Ouellette, Director of Operations and Economist at the MEI.

"The Canadian government must do everything in its power to dissuade the Biden administration from revoking this permit. It is unfortunate that Mr. Biden wants to go ahead with this kind of action, which is solely motivated by politics and ideology.

https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/blocking-keystone-xl-would-be-a-big-mistake-851970868.html

This will be interesting to watch - will Biden try and keep Canada happy or will he want to keep the radical left happy.

[SB Shock]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-55709261

Alberta's leader, Premier Jason Kenney, said he was "deeply concerned" by the reports of Mr Biden's plans and said if the pipeline was cancelled, his government would look at legal action.

"kill jobs on both sides of the border" and "weaken the critically important US-Canada relationship".

Headaches on the south and now the northern borders. I am sure Prime Minister Justin Trudeau will tell his people to stand down - this is for the world.

[SB Shock]

Has to be Canadian posturing for their voters right? They knew this was coming for several months.

It actually should be better for U.S. fracking industry as Canada oil will be more expensive.

Canadian lawmakers, including the country’s prime minister, bashed the United States on Wednesday after President Joe Biden rescinded a permit for a pipeline to ship oil from Canada to the Gulf Coast.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/canadian-lawmakers-react-to-biden-killing-keystone-xl-pipeline

[ABC]

So now that oil will be shipped on very environmentally friendly trains and trucks. Brilliant!

[BOBB]

So now that oil will be shipped on very environmentally friendly trains and trucks. Brilliant!

Increasing its cost and decreasing its competitiveness relative to US oil and alternatives. Sounds like a winner for US.

[wufan]

Increasing its cost and decreasing its competitiveness relative to US oil and alternatives. Sounds like a winner for US.

That logic only works if you are making a choice between two manufactured goods; an either/or scenario. For raw materials sold direct to consumers, no, this just means increased price.

[Shockm]

Increasing its cost and decreasing its competitiveness relative to US oil and alternatives. Sounds like a winner for US.

U.S. Refineries create jobs too

The Keystone Pipeline System runs from Alberta, Canada, through North Dakota to oil refineries in Illinois and Texas. The Keystone XL addition is under construction in Canada and would have carried over 830,000 barrels of crude oil a day from Canada through North Dakota to Nebraska. From Nebraska, existing pipelines would carry the crude to refineries on the U.S. Gulf Coast.

Biden’s first term began on Wednesday with a slew of executive actions after he was inaugurated on the steps of the U.S. Capitol. As The Daily Wire reported:

[BOBB]

That logic only works if you are making a choice between two manufactured goods; an either/or scenario. For raw materials sold direct to consumers, no, this just means increased price.

Increased prices are good for commodity producers, which we in the US are.

[C0|dB|00ded]

I have no idea the true environmental impact of the pipeline, but I know fossil fuel consumption has been trending down. I want to see us continue to sensibly move towards clean energy. I'm not crying over Biden's nod to the Greenies. We are a net exporter of oil, we have more of the stuff than we can even use. Let's transition away from the poison, carefully.

[wufan]

Increased prices are good for commodity producers, which we in the US are.

You are correct! It will be good for those that own oil wells in the US! Thank goodness for Joey B!

[SB Shock]

I have no idea the true environmental impact of the pipeline, but I know fossil fuel consumption has been trending down. I

Actually it not, world consumption continues to increase year after year except for 2020. They expect consumption will recover and start increasing by 2022 if the world come out of the pandemic.

It actually takes a lot of oil to produce all those plastics we use.

[ABC]

We are not doing away with fossil fuels for a long, long time.

[revenge_of_shocka_khan]

I have no idea the true environmental impact of the pipeline, but I know fossil fuel consumption has been trending down. I want to see us continue to sensibly move towards clean energy. I'm not crying over Biden's nod to the Greenies. We are a net exporter of oil, we have more of the stuff than we can even use. Let's transition away from the poison, carefully.

OK, so my ex-doctor's brother is a chemical engineer for one of the big oil companies. What this pipeline is actually supposed to do was to move massive amounts of tar sand from Alberta to Port Arthur, Texas, where it would live in sludge pits until the proper chemicals are applied to turn it into refinable oil. From what he told me, there are a lot of hazardous (actually dangerous) chemicals that are used in the process.

Not only that, the price (at the time and I have no idea now) to make this work is around $90 per barrel.

So unless someone can present a different set of ideas as to what this pipeline will be used for (other than moving tar sands from Alberta), I am not sure this is a viable move. There is a lot more oil that can be extracted economically and refined so as to provide a plentiful supply of oil at reasonable prices. And the hazardous chemicals used in the process will create toxic waste sites that will require future clean-up.

I'd rather see the canadians come up with their own process to turn the tar sand into oil so they have to put up with the toxic mess that will be created when this stuff gets refined. Not only that, perhaps the research they will do can bring the price/safety part of the equation down so that it might be safer in the future.

[ShockTalk]

OK, so my ex-doctor's brother is a chemical engineer for one of the big oil companies. What this pipeline is actually supposed to do was to move massive amounts of tar sand from Alberta to Port Arthur, Texas, where it would live in sludge pits until the proper chemicals are applied to turn it into refinable oil. From what he told me, there are a lot of hazardous (actually dangerous) chemicals that are used in the process.

Not only that, the price (at the time and I have no idea now) to make this work is around $90 per barrel.

So unless someone can present a different set of ideas as to what this pipeline will be used for (other than moving tar sands from Alberta), I am not sure this is a viable move. There is a lot more oil that can be extracted economically and refined so as to provide a plentiful supply of oil at reasonable prices. And the hazardous chemicals used in the process will create toxic waste sites that will require future clean-up.

I'd rather see the canadians come up with their own process to turn the tar sand into oil so they have to put up with the toxic mess that will be created when this stuff gets refined. Not only that, perhaps the research they will do can bring the price/safety part of the equation down so that it might be safer in the future.

IF TRUE, we would be on the same page.

My first question would be: Why go to the extra expense of a pipeline to put it somewhere else? There needs to be a financial gain for both Canada and the US. Guess I'll need to look up "tar sand". Doesn't sound like something that would even go through a pipeline efficiently.

[wufan]

OK, so my ex-doctor's brother is a chemical engineer for one of the big oil companies. What this pipeline is actually supposed to do was to move massive amounts of tar sand from Alberta to Port Arthur, Texas, where it would live in sludge pits until the proper chemicals are applied to turn it into refinable oil. From what he told me, there are a lot of hazardous (actually dangerous) chemicals that are used in the process.

Not only that, the price (at the time and I have no idea now) to make this work is around $90 per barrel.

So unless someone can present a different set of ideas as to what this pipeline will be used for (other than moving tar sands from Alberta), I am not sure this is a viable move. There is a lot more oil that can be extracted economically and refined so as to provide a plentiful supply of oil at reasonable prices. And the hazardous chemicals used in the process will create toxic waste sites that will require future clean-up.

I'd rather see the canadians come up with their own process to turn the tar sand into oil so they have to put up with the toxic mess that will be created when this stuff gets refined. Not only that, perhaps the research they will do can bring the price/safety part of the equation down so that it might be safer in the future.

Processing flammable, viscous solvents into other flammable and viscous solvents is ALWAYS dangerous. So, unless someone (preferably an in-law to an old high school classmate or maybe your grocers cousin) can present some evidence that the oil received in Texas is inherently more dangerous than other oil already in Texas, I’m going to call bullshit.