Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on November 6, 2015
Obama rejects Keystone XL project
President Obama rejected a presidential permit Friday for the controversial Keystone XL pipeline, citing concerns about its impact on the climate.
“America’s now a global leader when it comes to taking serious action to fight climate change,” Obama told reporters, standing in the Roosevelt Room beside Vice President Biden and Secretary of State John F. Kerry. “And frankly, approving this project would have undercut that global leadership. And that’s the biggest risk we face, not acting.”
He said now was the time to act to “protect the one planet we’ve got while we still can.”
The decision to deny TransCanada Corp. a cross-border permit for a 1,179-mile pipeline between Hardisty, Alberta, and Steele City, Neb. puts an end — at least for now — to a seven-year fight over a project that came to symbolize what Obama could do unilaterally to keep fossil fuels in the ground.
What started as a routine permitting application for a large infrastructure project became a litmus test among Democrats for what President Obama was willing to do to tackle global warming in the face of Republican resistance in Congress. Backers of the project said it would ensure a secure supply of oil from a reliable U.S. ally and create jobs; opponents said it would both exacerbate climate change by releasing a massive amount of carbon into the atmosphere and create pollution hazards along the pipeline’s route.
In the roughly seven-minute statement, Obama rejected the idea that the project, which would have brought Canadian oil sands, or tar sands, crude oil to the United States, would either lower oil prices or improve America’s energy security.
“The point is the old rules said we couldn’t promote economic growth and protect our environment at the same time,” he said, “but this is America and we have come up with new ways and new technologies to break down the old rules.”
On Wednesday, the State Department rebuffed TransCanada’s request to suspend its review of the pipeline until the Nebraska Public Service Commission approved a revised route through the state. The completed pipeline would move roughly 830,000 barrels a day of heavy crude oil to U.S. Gulf Coast refineries, which have been refitted to handle low-quality crude of the type produced in Alberta.
TransCanada president and chief executive Russ Girling issued a statement saying his company was “disappointed” with the rejection of its application.
“Today, misplaced symbolism was chosen over merit and science — rhetoric won out over reason,” Girling said. While he did not say whether the firm would try to challenge the rejection in court, he said, “TransCanada is reviewing the decision and its rationale.”
The decision to reject the pipeline comes just two days after the new Canadian prime minister, Justin Trudeau, took office. Trudeau has said that he wants to see the project approved, while stressing that he does not intend for this to remain a sticking point in bilateral relations, in contrast to his predecessor Stephen Harper.
In a statement Friday, Kerry said he had called his Canadian counterpart and the U.S. remains committed to that bilateral relationship.
“The reality is that this decision could not be made solely on the numbers – jobs that would be created, dirty fuel that would be transported here, or carbon pollution that would ultimately be unleashed,” Kerry said. “The United States cannot ask other nations to make tough choices to address climate change if we are unwilling to make them ourselves.”
In the broader U.S. political arena, the move drew immediate criticism from congressional Republicans and some union leaders, as well as praise from environmentalists.
House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) condemned Obama’s decision. “This decision isn’t surprising, but it is sickening,” Ryan said. “By rejecting this pipeline, the president is rejecting tens of thousands of good-paying jobs. He is rejecting our largest trading partner and energy supplier. He is rejecting the will of the American people and a bipartisan majority of the Congress.”
And Terry O’Sullivan, general president of the Laborers’ International Union of North America, said the move “is just one more indication of an utter disdain and disregard for salt-of-the-earth, middle-class working Americans… The president may be celebrated by environmental extremists, but with this act, President Obama has also solidified a legacy as a pompous, pandering job killer.”
By contrast 350.org’s Bill McKibben, whose group helped elevate the permit decision to a national issue by staging a huge protest in Washington in 2011, said it set an important global precedent.
“President Obama is the first world leader to reject a project because of its effect on the climate,” McKibben said in a statement. “That gives him new stature as an environmental leader, and it eloquently confirms the five years and millions of hours of work that people of every kind put into this fight. We’re still … sad about Keystone south and are well aware that the next president could undo all this, but this is a day of celebration.”
Later McKibben, a professor at Middlebury College, added in an e-mail that “this was a huge, diverse campaign–the biggest environmental effort in decades. It began with no real hope of victory, and it finished with what one gas executive has called the ‘keystone-ization’ of almost every fossil fuel project in the continent, a growing resistance to an impossible future.”
McKibben’s group highlighted the nature of the oil sands, where oil companies extract a thick bitumen by heating the oil sands to separate the useful crude. That process is energy intensive and therefore results in more greenhouse gas emissions than conventional crude oil.
But the project also drew protest along the proposed route where people worried about possible leaks. Jim Knopik, a farmer in Nebraska who had protested TransCanada’s original plan to build a pipeline across his property, said Friday that it was a relief to hear of Obama’s decision.
“I think it’s long overdue,” he said in an interview. “I’m just glad that it’s coming to an end and that the State Department and President Obama finally are coming out rejecting that thing. It’s pretty obvious to those of us living out here what damages can come from something like that. With climate change and all the other things in the air I think it’s going to be a really good thing.”
Industry analysts are divided over what the decision will mean for oil development in Canada’s oil sands region, which has already been hard hit by lower global crude prices.
“Denial constitutes an extreme case of politicization of energy infrastructure permitting,” said Robert McNally, president of the consulting firm Rapidan Group and energy expert on President George W. Bush’s National Security Council. “It will add what the industry calls ‘above ground risk.’ It will not prevent the development of energy resources in Canada or the U.S., but delay and uncertainty will raise costs.”
Those costs have become more important as the price of oil has slipped. Rail transport has expanded greatly to carry oil sands to the United States — soaring from just 16,000 barrels in 2010 to 51.2 million barrels in 2014 before dropping back somewhat so far this year. But rail transport is more expensive than pipeline transport. And the extra cost looms larger at current oil prices, which are about half the levels they were for much of the past six years.
Yet the final rejection of the Keystone XL project was widely expected in the oil industry, and many companies have already made other plans.
“The Keystone XL decision was a foregone conclusion,” said Pavel Molchanov, energy analyst at the investment advisory firm Raymond James. “The administration had already telegraphed its opposition, and even the company behind the project recently said that this it was looking to freeze its permit application.”
Democratic presidential hopefuls Bernie Sanders. Martin O’Malley and Hillary Rodham Clinton have come out against the project, and it could only be revived if a Republican won the White House.
“This project, somewhat bizarrely, took on an almost mythical status as the ultimate political hot potato between Republicans and Democrats,” Molchanov said. “But in actuality, it is simply not that big a deal in the grand scheme of things – not for U.S. refiners, and not for oil sands producers. This may be the only pipeline that most Americans have heard of mentioned on TV, but the reality is that new pipeline projects are being approved, and built, on a regular basis.”
Royal Dutch Shell’s chief executive, Ben van Beurden, said last year that the company had bid for space on another pipeline to move its oil sands crude to Canada’s east coast and from there to world markets, including Gulf Coast refiners. “We’re covered. I’m good,” he said in an interview. He said that “The argument that Keystone is a bad idea because it will somehow enable development of resources in Canada is to some extent flawed,” adding that other alternatives would emerge.
Yet pipeline projects across Canada have run into opposition there too. In October, Shell put aside a project that would have expanded its oil sands production and took a $2 billion charge against earnings for it. Van Beurden told analysts on the company’s earnings call that the reason was “not just the bitumen price but also the whole pricing dynamic around diluents and uncertainty about the evacuation route.” Diluents are used to make the bitumen extracted from oil sands less viscous so it can flow through pipelines.
57 Comments on "Obama rejects Keystone XL project"
GregT on Fri, 6th Nov 2015 2:32 pm
“America’s now a global leader when it comes to taking serious action to fight climate change,” Obama told reporters
Rail transport has expanded greatly to carry oil sands to the United States — soaring from just 16,000 barrels in 2010 to 51.2 million barrels in 2014
Much ado about nothing.
Plantagenet on Fri, 6th Nov 2015 3:22 pm
Obama is basically claiming that if oil coming from Canada to USA arrives via train rather then pipeline then that is somehow better for the climate.
Somebody better explain to O that CO2 emissions are related to how much oil is consumed—not how it is transported.
Cheers!
paulo1 on Fri, 6th Nov 2015 3:30 pm
Talk to us in 10 years.
Oh yeah, the US is energy independent. I forgot. (“We don’t need your stinkin’ oil, Chong”). Pretty funny politics, as usual.
ghung on Fri, 6th Nov 2015 4:52 pm
Plant; “Obama is basically claiming that if oil coming from Canada to USA arrives via train rather then pipeline then that is somehow better for the climate.”
I watched the whole news conference and Obama didn’t say anything like that; not even close. You just making shit up, plant? Nah,, that couldn’t be it. You and Six should go have a few beers together since you’re cut from the same cloth. Maybe he can meet you in Gibraltar or somewhere. Enjoy the flight.
Plantagenet on Fri, 6th Nov 2015 5:08 pm
@ghung
Obama says he helped the climate by cancelling the KXL pipeline. That means the Canadian oil coming to the US will continue to move by oil train.
How is that better for the environment?
Oil trains explode with distressing frequency. Oil trains are powered by diesel engines that release large amounts of CO2 Where, pray tell, is the improvement for the environment?
Try flushing the potty mouth and clearing your mind of anger, and just think about the facts of the matter for a second—how does this decision help the environment?
CHEERS!
rockman on Fri, 6th Nov 2015 5:21 pm
Ghung – I also heard the entire speech live. Are you saying the POTUS didn’t leave the impression that the lack of the permit was going to inhibit oil sands exports to the US?
You know as well as I do that the permit wasn’t needed 3 years to allow all time record amounts of oil sands production to be exported to the US. Nor 2 years ago. Nor 1 year ago. Nor is one bbl not being shipped across the border today for lack of the permit. And with more oil sands projects being delayed/cancelled due the price collapse excess import capacity will continue to grow year after year. It could be many years before there’s a need for another pipeline. In fact a year from now we’re guarenteed flow rates of existing pipelines will post decreases.
The statements from both the pro and anti permit sides that something significant has happened is both funny and pathetic at the same time.
ghung on Fri, 6th Nov 2015 5:33 pm
Yeah, Rock, I didn’t say the news conference wasn’t purely political. Just didn’t recall trains being mentioned. Meanwhile, some guy on NPR claiming victory said it’s a major victory for the climate, and a big blow to pipelines and the industry all over the world. We both know it won’t change a damn thing, but people need their stories I guess. See the email I got from 350.org I posted on the other forum. Jeez.
I guess I can’t blame most of these folks for believing they can fix this, or Obama for acting like a politician. If their mouth is moving….
… then there are certain posters here who want to make this stuff even more absurd than it already is. Sure. We need that.
ghung on Fri, 6th Nov 2015 5:45 pm
Plant said; “….Try flushing the potty mouth and clearing your mind of anger…”
Yeah, Plant; flushing now. Cheers!
Oh,, and try taking your head out of your ass. You ain’t my momma. I’m betting I’ve seen things and had to do things that would have left you cowering in some dark corner pissing yourself; freaking catatonic. Whoops! Flushing again. Cheers!
It’s a mean old world, Plant. Some of us quit pretending.
apneaman on Fri, 6th Nov 2015 5:57 pm
planty, the environment doesn’t need any help. It’s the rapicious apes who are in need of some serious assistance. No one explains it better than this great American.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjmtSkl53h4
Davy on Fri, 6th Nov 2015 6:12 pm
G-Man, you have more balls than I do. How the hell could you watch that “POTUS” “circus” conference and not feel queasy? I can’t watch any politics anymore. It insults my intelligence so bad. It is like listening to shity music. I just say no…..FOCK it. I am not going to vote this year. I voted last time because I felt it a duty. I can’t anymore. What I am seeing does not justify a vote. It is nothing more than an endorsement for stupid. When I say stupid I mean it in a deadly way. These cats run things. Somewhere up the chain of command is a brief case with codes. If these clowns are running things that means they have access to codes that can end life as we know it. GEEZE God help us!
apneaman on Fri, 6th Nov 2015 6:16 pm
BTW planty, the potty mouth thing? It’s a kindergarten version of PC – junior language control. As ghung just pointed out and I have many times, you have no problem with words when lying and making shit up, but are all indignant when you hear a swear word. Phony lying cunt.
Davy on Fri, 6th Nov 2015 6:16 pm
Planter, SHUT THE FOCK UP! My loo is full so don’t ask me to flush.
onlooker on Fri, 6th Nov 2015 6:38 pm
“It is nothing more than an endorsement for stupid.” It is more than stupid Davy, it is a vicious psychopathic negligence for any route that would put some brakes on this runaway train and the well being of life on Earth.
ghung on Fri, 6th Nov 2015 6:50 pm
Davy said; “G-Man, you have more balls than I do. How the hell could you watch that “POTUS” “circus” conference and not feel queasy?”
Moths to the flame? I don’t know, except that I don’t want to be accused of not paying attention. People need to see this shit. What we have is a big turning away from most things that matter while these people play the game. Worry not, though. I was multi-tasking, so it wasn’t a complete waste of time 😉
Found a new bar for my little vintage Homelite. I was in despair because it’s such a great little machine, and it’ll cut circles around saws twice its size. For a hint of its age, it says “USE NO GASAHOL” on the top. Built in Charlotte, NC, early ’90s. Hard to get parts for, but worth the trouble. New bar; new chain; cleaned up, new rope, ready to go, and starts first pull every time. Last year it cut at least two cords on one 2 gallon can of mix. I wonder what the EROEI of that is.
Plantagenet on Fri, 6th Nov 2015 7:24 pm
@Ghung
Your potty mouth didn’t flush. Try clenching your teeth and flushing twice! That sometimes works. Cleanses the palate, so to speak.
Now—what are you so angry about?
Its simply a fact that while Obama delayed the pipeline project for 7 years exports of Canadian oil to the US in giant oil trains grew rapidly. As Rickman pointed out above, stopping the KXL pipeline does absolutely nothing to diminish the flow of Canadian oil into the US.
All Obama is doing by finally rejecting the pipeline is guaranteeing that Canadian oil will continue to be transported in dangerous exploding oil trains instead of in a safer pipeline system. And to make matters even worse, the diesel engines powering the giant oil trains emit huge amounts of CO2—so Obama has ensured unnecessary CO2 emissions will continue.
Whats so good about transporting Canadian oil in dangerous oil trains that emit huge amounts of CO2??
cheers!
ghung on Fri, 6th Nov 2015 7:31 pm
Plant said; @Ghung
Your potty mouth didn’t flush.”
Yes, it did Plant. I just reload every time you comment. And if you keep expecting credence from anything Obama says, you may end up with a bit of ‘potty mouth’ yourself. Might do you some good.
Salute!
ghung on Fri, 6th Nov 2015 7:38 pm
BTW, Plant, a helluva lot of this oil moves on Warren Buffet’s trains. You really think Obama is going to piss off one of his biggest supporters, major benefactor of Democrat causes, and his 48,000+ BNSF employees? I’m not accusing you of being naive, but it surely seems that way.
ghung on Fri, 6th Nov 2015 7:39 pm
Oh,,, Cheers!
Davy on Fri, 6th Nov 2015 7:55 pm
Funny G-man, I find sharpening my saw relaxing too. I know I need to pay attention but I gave up this year. We are at peak political entropy in the US. When Ben Carson said Pyramids were grain storage devices I asked myself “self what the fock is up with that?” “Self” isn’t that guy running for the highest office in the United States>>>>Geeze Loueeze
Makati1 on Fri, 6th Nov 2015 8:07 pm
Davy, we agree on this one. I have not voted since Regan in 1980. My man lost that time. The quality of potentials has declined to the point of ridiculousness.
Which dangerous clown will ‘win’ this time? I have no clue, nor do I read or watch anything concerning the election. Nothing will change no matter who gets the sock puppet job so why waste my time.
Davy on Fri, 6th Nov 2015 8:35 pm
See, Mak, we can agree.
ghung on Fri, 6th Nov 2015 9:17 pm
It’s TV, Davy. TV screwed up our society’s ability to choose leaders and attract serious adults to the process. May as well be deciding which laundry detergent we are all stuck with for the next four years, eh?
Maybe it’s me, but, born in the mid-50s, it seems Presidents have been becoming more juvenile since maybe Carter. Even Nixon seemed more the statesman – Johnson wasn’t elected, initially, but was fun to watch; an ‘adult’ in a Texas sort of way, and probably the last of the true southern democrats, excepting Carter, perhaps. Ford never got the chance and didn’t want the job anyway (probably a good qualification). Carter’s time would come after he left office.
Then we get the Gipper, the first Prez actually qualified to be president on TV, following the script written by neo-liberal economists while pretending the conservatives thought all of this debt-based economics up; all-the-while pretending to be bankrupting the Soviet Union after it had been bankrupt and collapsing for over a decade (went there; saw that). Still giving credit for that, the Reagan historians.
Bush 1? WWII and cold war artefact. Nice guy though. Clinton? Smart guy when he wasn’t trying to remember to not inhale, getting blowjobs in the White House, or trying to remember what the definition of ‘is’ is.
Then we got Bush the Lesser who couldn’t even pretend to be Presidential material. Draft-dodging little shit doing lines in Alabama who doesn’t have the courage to tell everybody; “yeah, it was a stupid war so I used family connections to stay out of it and went to Montgomery to party ’til it was over.” I would have a tiny bit of respect if Dubya could come clean on that. Not much, mind you…….
Obama? Another one who really didn’t have a chance, but I think that’s where we are; political impotence and theater. It’s not like they could fix all of this. So, no surprise that what we see is what we get: Folks like Cruz, Carson, Trump, Marco-can’t-balance-his-own-checkbook-Rubio, and Clinton, who wasn’t giving her husband blowjobs in the white House when it could have mattered.
Hoping history, what ever is left of it, has a sense of humour.
apneaman on Fri, 6th Nov 2015 10:01 pm
How TV Ruined Your Life – Episode 1 of 6 – Fear
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqeBcvHhA9M
ghung on Fri, 6th Nov 2015 10:12 pm
Stop, ap. I’m watching TV; a show where a bunch of guys pray to Jesus to help them dig mega-tonnes of dirt to get a couple of thousand ounces of gold (if Jesus agrees). Don’t spoil the moment.
makati1 on Sat, 7th Nov 2015 12:00 am
Davy, we agree on a lot of things, but some are still wide apart. I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on those. ^_^
makati1 on Sat, 7th Nov 2015 12:03 am
ghung, perfect summary of the Presidential lineup since Nixon.
Davy on Sat, 7th Nov 2015 4:54 am
I agree Mak, We can agree to disagree with a degree of conduct that is respectful of our fellow board participants. That is hard to define but most have a good understanding of what is in distaste and what is good research. It also involves fairness and balance when we are comparing our homes. Most people do not want to get a steady diet of being told how stupid they are by association. There are ways to be told you are stupid that are helpful and even funny. Those who are worth reading on this board can advance their ideas and message by following this IMHO.
rockman on Sat, 7th Nov 2015 6:50 am
Ghung – About the POTUS’s …. I agree. But I did like Jimmy the engineer…that’s why I voted for him. Unfortunately he was more technologist then politician which got him no where in DC.
And on one level you can’t blame those POTUS’s: they just reflected what the voting public wanted. A politician from either party telling the ugly truth and promising to make those hard changes to BAU wouldn’t have a chance of becoming the next POTUS IMHO.
In a similar way it’s like folks blaming ExxonMobil et al for AGW while in reality they and the other fossil fuel consumers are the ones actually generating most of the GHG by BURNING FOSSIL FUELS. Many want to blame the politicians for our problems…politicians chosen by the majority. Just as the same majority choses to burn fossil fuels and want to blame others for AGW.
We have the politicians and climate change as endorsed by the majority. As we say in Texas: you can’t keep a cow on your porch and blame it when you step into a pile of sh*t. LOL
peakyeast on Sat, 7th Nov 2015 7:00 am
It sure does look like the US choses their presidents between two groups: Lick-ass lawyers&similar scum and actors.
But it also seems that TPTB understands that this game is getting old – so now they want people to understand it REALLY is something completely new.
So next time they will try to find another large minority to rape with their hope of hope.
Perhaps a woman? Or a retarded cripple?
No wait – a? siamese twin perhaps? Twice the bang for the buck.
JuanP on Sat, 7th Nov 2015 7:18 am
Peakyeast, This is another answer to your question about population the other day. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_momentum
peakyeast on Sat, 7th Nov 2015 7:36 am
Ah – thanks JuanP. 🙂
I, at least partly, understand now. Even though I still have the benefit of understanding how valid that calculation is in the real world.
shortonoil on Sat, 7th Nov 2015 8:44 am
When oil is $44/ barrel, when it costs $80 to produce it, it doesn’t make any difference how they get it here. When they run out of money they won’t be getting it anywhere! This is just a few more MSM sound bites that camouflages what is really happening. Let’s pretend that the petroleum industry is not going broke, and maybe no one will notice!
http://www.thehillsgroup.org/
Dredd on Sat, 7th Nov 2015 9:08 am
The Extinction of Chesapeake Bay Islands
Kenz300 on Sat, 7th Nov 2015 9:58 am
Climate Change, declining fish stocks, droughts, floods, pollution, water and food shortages all stem from the worlds worst environmental problem……. OVER POPULATION.
Yet the world adds 80 million more mouths to feed, clothe, house and provide energy and water for every year… this is unsustainable…
Birth Control Permanent Methods: Learn About Effectiveness
http://www.emedicinehealth.com/birth_control_permanent_methods/article_em.htm
Kenz300 on Sat, 7th Nov 2015 9:58 am
Climate Change is real…. it will impact all of us……we need to move to clean energy production with wind and solar power and clean energy consumption with electric vehicles……… Fossil fuels are the cause of Climate Change….. we need to deal with the cause….
ennui2 on Sat, 7th Nov 2015 10:03 am
Let’s see. Obama does something most would consider good, albeit mostly symbolic and Planty tries to throw water on it. Would anyone expect any different?
rockman on Sat, 7th Nov 2015 10:03 am
I’m wondring how many realize that if the US govt banned the export of US refinery products there might be almost no oil sands production. The US is the only market for Canadian oil. But there really any market here for DOMESTIC consumption: between US oil production and other imports we don’t need one bbl of oil sands production to supply our demand. The Canadians ship us about 3 million bopd and the US refines about 3 million bopd and then exports all those products. If the govt didn’t allow those refinery exports (along with the oil we do actually export despite the “ban”) the oil sands couldn’t be sold here unless they had greatly reduced their asking price. Perhaps so low to make much if not all most oil sands production uneconomic. Now imagine if they could get by with those lower prices: we would not have see the high oil prices that made the US “shale miracle” possible.
If this dynamics didn’t include the US govt allowing refinery exports which directly allow higher oil prices for the Canadians and shale players some aggressive DA might file RICO charges for a conspiricy forcing US consumers to pay more for the fossil fuel habit. LOL
Really, think about it for a moment: without the Canadian oil imports which allow the export of US refinery products the price of oil would not have been high enough to support oil sands production or the shale boom. IOW the US govt policy of allowing refinery product export supports the oil patch more then any other factor out there.
Once again: President Obama thank you from all of us oil field hands.
Boat on Sat, 7th Nov 2015 10:25 am
Obama burned a lot of political capital to fight Keystone. It was the right move. Remember drill baby drill? The only reason gasoline prices were high is because Obama wouldn’t open up gov lands to drilling? Refineries were not being drilled because of regulations?
Politics is give and take. Maybe that’s why were still flaring.
The Dem’s are going all in on climate change and green energy now while the Rep’s are still deniers. Keystone is just a symbol, a political move towards changing of the minds.
Just as a reminder, policy in the US is very slow. Just because a POTUS believes in something just means he will get another fight in Congress but at least he can get the subject into public view.
apneaman on Sat, 7th Nov 2015 10:27 am
America has built the equivalent of 10 Keystone pipelines since 2010 — and nobody said anything
http://business.financialpost.com/news/energy/america-has-built-the-equivalent-of-10-keystone-pipelines-since-2010-and-no-one-said-anything
idontknowmyself on Sat, 7th Nov 2015 10:31 am
I will add my own stupid comments to these already stupid comments.
http://www.chaturbate.com is where you have to go to witness shitty poor ass ape makeing babies
Boat on Sat, 7th Nov 2015 10:34 am
Rock,
Really, think about it for a moment: without the Canadian oil imports which allow the export of US refinery products the price of oil would not have been high enough to support oil sands production or the shale boom
Or…. If GW had not blown up the Middle East prices would have remained low and tar sands and fracking would be much smaller.
rockman on Sat, 7th Nov 2015 11:06 am
I agree Boat: both the D and R politicians have been very beneficial to the oil patch for a long time. But why wouodn’t they: that’s exactly what the vast majority has demanded. Granted at times that very vocal and very small minority might make it seem otherwise. But the America people have the govt and energy policies they’ve demanded for a very long time.
Hence after 7 years of having the greenest POTUS in history we are importing record volumes of the “dirtiest oil on planet” and exporting record volumes of US govt coal.
paulo1 on Sat, 7th Nov 2015 12:39 pm
Letter to the online Tyee, plus article worth reading
http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2015/11/07/Disappointing-Keystone-Response/
Firstly, corporate (and union) donations are illegal federally. Only individual donations are permitted.
Secondly, it has been well known that the fed Libs supported the Keystone pipeline to the U.S. in order to permit greater access to U.S. markets. Hell, even the centrist Saskatchewan NDP supports the Keystone pipeline.
Which leaves us with the Kinder Morgan twinning to the SW coast. Both the fed Libs and fed NDP did not oppose same. In that regard, the last Insights West opinion poll of BCers show BCers evenly divided on the issue. But the key metric was that only 21% of BCers were STRONGLY opposed.
At the end of the proverbial day, I see the KM twinning still being green-lighted.
PS. Oil trains in BC are now common. BNSF ships North Dakotan Bakken light crude into BC regularly along its waterfront tracks and past BC population centres… the same North Dakotan light crude (with low flash point) that caused the Quebec incident.
idontknowmyself on Sat, 7th Nov 2015 3:24 pm
Instead of a vasectomie, this also work to make a guy sterile. Something to think about for a poor man without money
http://www.ballbustingtube.com/video/1968914/gf-kickboxing
BC on Sat, 7th Nov 2015 6:33 pm
https://insightmaker.com/insight/1954/The-World3-Model-A-Detailed-World-Forecaster
A nifty tool at the link above for the hopelessly geeky systems types among us. 🙂
https://app.box.com/s/dvm3r502fj13jievz36y0k0lq0eoegx7
https://app.box.com/s/0vgiilt9j85ix0yzaq7zi851zx6qw08x
https://app.box.com/s/86dp12kdpo4hy3xrsjiwkcjmsdnzwy5x
The World3 BAU simulation projects the world population peak in the mid- to late 2020s to mid-2030s, which is what my own independent work implies, FWIW.
This clearly indicates that we are already well into the final human ape fertility cycle during which depletion per capita of net energy, water, arable land, forests, fisheries, and food will constrain fertility and surviving births hereafter.
I’m stating the obvious to this group, but it is worth restating and reaffirming.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2oyU0RusiA&feature=youtu.be
(Skip the intros and go to ~5:50.)
Dennis Meadows concluded some years ago that it’s now too late to act collectively to mitigate the anticipated worst effects from the forces that are already fully entrained globally.
BC on Sat, 7th Nov 2015 6:37 pm
idontknowmyself, I suspect most participants here are ignoring you, but what is the purpose of your participation and sharing the links that I strongly suspect no one here is interested in beyond a cursory indulgence of their curiosity once, or perhaps twice.
I am absolutely certain that there are countless other sites/lists on the Internet that would appreciate your interests/tastes infinitely more than most of us here.
So, how about an act of grace and decency and cease with the nonsense?
Thanks.
BC on Sat, 7th Nov 2015 6:47 pm
@short, I’m with you all the way WRT your reasoning, but I would add that it is not inconceivable that the Anglo-American, rentier-socialist corporate-state will one day de facto nationalize the energy sector, i.e., fully merge the state’s power and taxing authority with the energy complex to subsidize the largest oil companies’ costs and profits, no matter how much money they lose per barrel.
Of course, it will likely still mean falling production at lower prices because the economy will be so weak, and growth so slow or non-existence per capita, that the gov’t will have to borrow and spend, and the Fed print, to allow deficits to prevent nominal GDP from contracting.
Davy on Sat, 7th Nov 2015 7:50 pm
I will repeat my personal doom narrative. My thoughts are we are in an “irreversible” situation on multiple levels of system tipping points. This is the key point “multiple” tipping points in “convergence”. This will not end well. There is no sugar coating this situation. It is a catch 22 of growth and degrowth again at multiple levels.
My feelings are that we can change some things if we acknowledge our impending collapse. This is especially true of poor lifestyles and attitudes in the macro and at the individual level. Those things we cannot change because of scale with time frame and scope we can begin adaptation behaviors and mitigation policies. We can lower pain, suffering, and limit life span loss. Death is expensive for society. Let’s avoid needless death. Death is going to happen but we should make an effort to limit it where we can by not contributing to it by our own negligence and avarice. There is a shit storm of bad ass coming our way that all we can do is hope for the best and batten down the hatches. We are going to see the worst of our imaginations in some areas.
This could be global and all inclusive. We just don’t know. The time frame for all this is uncertain. Yet, from my past 2 years or more on this board I have come to the conclusion on multiple fronts we have only a handful of years of normal left.
I am like a squirrel now hording nuts. I am fully mobilized and active. I keep track of my farm efforts. I am a spreadsheet freak who likes to organize and analyze. I put in 569 hours over the last two months. I am not bragging I am just relating my point that the end of the world as we know it is near. This energizes me. Get out and do something. Many things can be done now that will not be so easy to do later. Time is short and of the essence so get with it.
Bob Owens on Sat, 7th Nov 2015 8:13 pm
We really don’t have to worry about the XL pipeline or the oil trains or the Tar Sands any more. The world of economics is busy nailing them up into their coffins as we speak. They are not economically viable now (and never really were). The projects are getting canceled; the boom is over; the peak of Tar Sands has passed already. Wind power, still off the radar, is starting to come on strong. Utility companies are starting to invest and they like what they see. They have the muscle to make the large project happen and they are starting to do so. They may have started to realize that the only way for them to stay in business is blowing in the wind.
BC on Sat, 7th Nov 2015 9:34 pm
https://app.box.com/s/ejyjgfb5bsaupghi425y2vjlfl9um7hf
https://app.box.com/s/0hroqkg7zym2us8em4k55a36affs4xmc
https://app.box.com/s/jemdqkdd23257oummtpjwl6348wigdlx
https://app.box.com/s/pfdk6c7a9g9n5i0e3s5txnej16q7biav
Bob, see above. It’s too late for wind and solar. But a warning before you examine the charts. Most renewables advocates suffer immediate and visceral cognitive dissonance, so take a few deep breaths and prepare yourself to be disappointed.