that guess isn't for yonni, but for putin, obi and anyone who would be surprised I would take a stand against keystone.

I don't think the farmland pollution concern is that big, personally. Oil doesn't spread as well on land as it does on water, so it won't turn into a BP gulf spill or even an Exxon Valdez. What I'm wondering here is...are they sending it still in the sands to Texas, theoretically? That doesn't seem very optimal, and the Texas refineries would need to be rebuilt to handle it.

And the Alberta sands aren't just dirty to refine, they're also essentially strip mining, which poses its own environmental problems.

I'll need to look into this issue more, but I've always been a little leery about the Alberta oil.

Building it would be like... D-Day for the environment.

Even if our refusal to build it will just result in the oil getting sent to China, better to tell our grandchildren we did what we could to protect the planet, even if a lot of people didn't.

Seriously, can anyone let me know why no one gives a shit about the environment? We fucking.. live there.

"The pipeline should create 20,000 new jobs and give America 100 million more barrels of oil every year for UNDER market value (because the Canadians are, unfortunatly, dumb enough to sell it to America at below to market price."

Completely wrong. The market price of oil isn't driven by WHO we buy it from, it's driven by the amount of oil on the market. If Canada sold its tar sand oil to China, it will still have the same effect of increasing supply and lowering the price of oil worldwide. For example (from the Wash. Post), uprising in Libya set the global oil price up 30% last year and the price of Canadian oil went up 55% at the same time. It's overly simplistic to assume that buying from Canada would be a cheaper and less subject to market fluctuations.

Not a dig at you, Fasces, but this is a claim that gets tossed around by every GOP politician that is completely bogus.

Thucydides, (wow, iPhone just autocorrected to your name).
Do you not need some amount of pragmatism? Shipping the oil to china and then shipping middle eastern oil to the states is even worse environmentally.

I'm no proponent of the oil sands but is this not making the best of a bad situation?

I'm not sold either way. Just trying to reason it out loud.

If it is US companies in Alberta (I may be going there to do some business with the electric folks there, Fortis Alberta, later this year, but I gigress)... Any how, if it is US companies up there, why not dismantle and ship up what is usable from the refineries not used here and reassemble up there? I know the whole refinery can't be moved as it's a freaking building/series of buildings, but surely much of the equipment could be. It would give a boost to Canada's jobs/economy as it would be Canadian's working those refineries; it would make the environmentalists feel much happier as we could then truck or rail ship refined fuels across the border into the US; and it would reduce the US dependence on middle-eastern oil.

Draug, having our refineries in Texas near the coast is actually much more efficient because it's in closer proximity to oil tankers that are needed to ship the oil. Moving the refineries to Alberta (the middle of North America) would be incredibly inefficient because then you either need the pipeline even more, which is politically untenable, or you need to truck it all to the Gulf. Not to mention that moving our refineries to a foreign country isn't conducive to reducing our dependence on foreign oil.

@2WL - I meant the surplus refinery equipment. We have refineries sitting doing nothing. And as far as foreign oil dependence, most people accept that as a dependence on oil outside North America. Canad is so close and part of North America that we don't usually consider it foreign oil, especially when it is US companies owning and working those oil fields.

Oh, and you could truck it / rail it / pipeline it to other coasts from Canada. Like the Hudson Bay or the Pacific via BC/Alaska.

"And the Alberta sands aren't just dirty to refine, they're also essentially strip mining, which poses its own environmental problems."
When I meant dirty I didn't mean just the refining, sorry if it came off that way.

"I don't think the farmland pollution concern is that big, personally"
Agree, but the first anti-keystone protest was about that...

"Seriously, can anyone let me know why no one gives a shit about the environment? We fucking.. live there. "
Canada would benefit greatly from global warming:
1. melting ice caps would allow access to the oil reserves that we can't currently access cause they are in the way. This would bring massive amounts of revenue to Russia, America and Canada, as something like 1/3 of the worlds remaining reserves are estimated to be there.
2. new trade routes: Canada and Russia have very limited access to coastal trade, with no ice caps ships could cross the arctic ocean and would create, according the the economist, billions of dollars in trade
3. longer summers. One of our largest exports remains to be agriculture goods such as wheat. Its why we (canada) normally has a trade surplus in the summer and fall, and a deficit in the winter and spring. Having longer summers would give us a larger trade surpluss giving Canada more money.
4. more land, the useless tundra's and glaciers take up land that Canada can't currently use, 85% of Canada lie on the border with the states, not because we love the states, but because going further north makes is to cold. The more land would not only mean more farmland (again increasing our income) but might encourage further population from immigration.
5. Effects have been minimal. The climate change resulting from the first 200 years of industrialism only added an estimated of 1.5 degrees to the average global tempeture, that number isn't that large.
6. The number of natural disasters (contrary to popular belief) has not gone up due to climate change. The number of natural disasters reported in major cities has gone up. Why? We have a larger population. If an earth quake happened in the Sahara today and cause 0 deaths and didn't damage any infrustructure, it probably wouldn't make the news. 50 years ago, when our population was only 3 billion, we had less cities and small cities, as a result damages coming from natural disasters was naturally smaller, the probablility of a hurricane etc from hitting a city was lower.
7. Its long term. Humans are known for innovating only when it is needed. When we needed a super weapon the most, we came up with the atom bomb, when the europeans started having population problems, we discovered the new world. Climate change is not our problem, its our childrens, and who knows, maybe someday we will invent ways to prevent climate change or lower emmisions naturally, without needing to get rid of green house gases.

more later

Trade routes...Canada already has good access to both oceans, including access down into the Great Lakes, and decent ports on each coast. Developing a port in the northern parts of Canada would require far more infrastructure than it would be worth. It would benefit Russia, who has some northern seasonal ports near Norway, much more.

As for more land, quite a bit of northern Canada is the exposed Canadian Shield, which would make for the most awful farmland imaginable. Most of northern Ontario up into Nunavut is like that, and further west, you hit the Rockies.

D-Day for the environment...blah blah blah...Yeah, they said the Alaskan pipeline would destroy the environment, too. Uh...it didn't. In fact, animals tend to flock around the nice, warm pipeline, then they get frisky and reproduce.

Do any of your environmentalist wack-jobs ever take a rational view of things? Ever look at history and examples? Or do you just thrive on hysteria and overreaction? Must EVERYTHING be doom and gloom for you people? (Yes...that's right, I said "You people"!! :P )

"Ever look at history and examples?"

Lets look at "history and examples":
- Deepwater Horizon
- Exxon Valdez
- Love Canal
- Gulf of Mexico "dead zone"
- WV/Kentucky oil sludge spill (2000)
- Alabama PCB poisoning
- Hudson River PCB poisoning
- Libby asbestos
- TVA Fossil coal sludge spill (2008)

Just to name a few recent ones. Not to mention the Exxon Valdez spill wouldn't have occurred if the pipeline hadn't been built.

The real disappointment is that we could significantly reduce/eliminate our need for oil if people would get their heads out of their asses.

The 20000 jobs estimate refers to “person-years” of employment — a single job that lasts two years is counted twice. The GLI report, using TransCanada’s own data, finds just 2,500 to 4,650 jobs will be created. And according to the State Department, the pipeline would provide only 20 permanent jobs.

2ndWhiteLine....what a poor set of examples. Where all of them local disasters? Yes. The Gulf is now thriving, Alaska recoverd, etc etc etc. As I said, you people THRIVE on hysteria. In 50 years, the same morons will be bitching about how we have too much toxic waste from electric vehcile batteries...(by the way, "Electric cars" are really "COAL-POWERED cars...morons...)

Life involves a certain amount of risk, and at times the risks bite you. But for the most part, both through the actions of man, and through the *incredible* power of nature, the earth recovers. You fools have yet to realize that the earth is not the stinking cess-pit you think it is.

That being said, I'm sure most of you love your iPhones and your internet and the latest computer upgrades...all unneccesary to life...all which create toxic waste. I'll bet you eat unhealthy foods and meat, which are produced often to the detriment of the local ecology.

That's what I cant' stand about environmentalists. When THEY want something, it's OK...the impact is minimal and we should shut up for pointing out their hypocrisy. But find somethign THEY don't like and the world is coming to an end.

Poppycock!

Idk about all of you, but I am using a chisel and hammer to post on this forum, no toxic waste here ;)

@krellin - As often as I agree with you, I must disagree with the following...

"...(by the way, "Electric cars" are really "COAL-POWERED cars...morons..."

No, electricity can be and is provided by many other means. Take a drive from Indianapolis to Chicago and drive right through a wind farm that pumps out 600 MW. A typical household uses <3 MW per year.

So you are the moron for assuming the electricity used to recharge the car is generated via fossil fuels.

I love to make that drive. During the day it is cool, but at night it is trippy.

600mw output from a wind farm? Wow.
Do you know the name of it?

Did that one going to and from Madison, Wisconsin last summer for a wedding. Made the mistake of going *through* Chicago on the way back.

@Yonni: It surprising how many folks think the pipeline was put on hold due to Obama's environmental policies and politics. While these things did play a role they aren't the whole truth or even a really big part of the story.

The U.S. has what is called the Environmental Protection Act. The Act requires that before any major construction can be approved, an environmental impact assessment needs to be conducted so that the likely affects of the project can be understood and (hopefully) mitigated. The idea behind the law is that people living in the area of major construction projects have the right to at least know what the project will do to their community. Ultimately, those folks may decide that they want the project - with or without mitigation - but they have the right under the law to be informed. We call this principle "informed consent" - ultimately the law doesn't mind destroying local environments so long as the destruction is understood by the local population and they decide the risks are worth the rewards that will come from the construction.

The problem with the Keystone pipeline originates in Nebraska. There, the Nebraska State (not Federal) Department of Environmental Quality had major concerns about the proximity of the pipeline to a major aquifer. They worried about what might happen to a major aquatic ecosystem and the state's drinking water if there were ever a pipeline leak. Nebraska asked Trans Canada for additional proposals so they could at least understand their options and seek a compromise that would allow the pipeline to be built with less risk to their aquifer.

Nebraska asked the federal government to put the project on hold while they conducted further environmental studies. The Obama Administration agreed to put federal approval on hold while the State of Nebraska sorted out it's own environmental business with Trans Canada (as an aside, federal approval is necessary for this pipeline because of the interstate and international nature of the project. Normally, states are allowed to make their own decisions about environmental matters in their boarders, but not when other states' rights might be affected. But that's a side matter...).

Then Congress got involved. They passed a law requiring the administration to make a decision to either approve or disprove of the proposed pipeline within 60 days. Now the Obama administration had a real problem. They had just put the project on hold because the state of Nebraska said it did not have a complete understanding of the environmental impacts of the pipeline and their various options for mitigation. The Environmental Protection Act requires that the people of Nebraska at least have this knowledge before the project could be approved. But Congress had passed a law requiring the Administration to either approve or disprove the pipeline as proposed. The administration asked Nebraska whether they could possibly conduct the studies and formulate alternative proposals in that time - which the State said they couldn't do.

So, the Obama Administration had two options: approve the pipeline without the informed consent of the people of Nebraska, in violation of the Environmental Protection Act, or disprove the pipeline and risk a bunch of people being pissed at him for disapproving of a major construction project. He chose the later.

In any case, the pipeline is not dead. Indeed, nothing has really changed, except for the public discourse on the matter. Nebraska is still working on figuring out their environmental issues, and Trans Canada intends to re-file its proposal once it has made Nebraska happy. At that point, it is likely that the project will be approved - since most of the rest of the project complies with the law, and the law does not allow a president to disapprove an otherwise legal project simply for political reasons. That's something environmentalists will have to understand when the time comes: ultimately, the people of the states where the pipeline will be built want its construction - so long as their specific environmental concerns are addressed. If all the "affected" states are on board, and give their informed consent, the EPA does not give the president power to deny them their project (I put "affected" in quotes because I know some people will say that everyone is affected by environmental concerns. The legal meaning is far more narrow and applies only to states that will physically house the project or will be directly impacted by its construction. For now, global/regional climate change is not implicated by the Act's provisions. Direct means "direct" - like, the pipe discharges directly onto a state's land or directly pollutes a river that forms a shared border. But again, I digress...).

Granted, there will be a delay of years before the project will break ground. But that delay was really caused by the legitimate concerns of the people of Nebraska, who objected to the proposed project on the grounds that it threatened their drinking water. It has nothing much to do with politics except for the political theater that has grown around it.

I hope this gives you the insight into the controversy that you were looking for.

Love Canal, says the Buffalo area native, was a beast of a totally different stripe. The people who dumped the chemicals in it didn't want to sell it, and fought the local government about it to try to convince them it wasn't a place that anything should be built on, ever. But they were convinced that they wanted it to...build a school on. They eventually more or less forced the company to sell it to them, but the company but a huge proviso on it about the fact that they, personally, didn't think it should ever be developed, wanted to prevent development, and did not want to be held responsible. It's considered one of the hallmarks of liability law.

The Niagara Falls government, for what its worth, had used portions of the site to dispose of waste themselves, including agreeing to take some waste from the Manhattan Project.

All of this, including Hooker Chemicals' statement that they felt it should never be developed, was publicly available. That situation only got as bad as it did because of stupid government more or less forcing the company to sell it and stupid people buying the land.

As an aside/addendum to the well written summation above, the President and Congress can disprove the project if it is requesting federal funds by simply denying the funds. It has the effect on a project like this of disporving it, but if TransCanada and the states in question fund it themselves, then it still happens. I suspect, however, that the funding provided by the federal government would be required to make a project of this magnitude happen, so look for that to be the next showdown.

This pipeline makes too much sense economically and strategically not to happen. Regardless of who's president in 2013 this will be built. Obama is just cynically playing politics with this to appease the environmentalists in his base. While the unions who miss out on jobs have nowhere to give their money besides the president, these environmentalists could go Green or just stay home. I just hope Harper doesn't lose patience in the next ten months or so.

What jobs!? The amount of jobs that the pipeline would create is almost nothing when it comes to our economy as a whole.

Even assuming that's true, this pipeline represents an indefinitely secure supply of energy for our economy. By developing oil reserves in Alberta and places like North Dakota we actually *will* reach that Holy Grail of all but eliminating our dependence on Middle East oil. We still must look for replacements since oil won't last forever, but while we still have to use it far better it comes from Canada than Saudi Arabia.

"Completely wrong. The market price of oil isn't driven by WHO we buy it from, it's driven by the amount of oil on the market. If Canada sold its tar sand oil to China, it will still have the same effect of increasing supply and lowering the price of oil worldwide."
you have no idea how markets work. Supply and Demand isn't the only thing that takes into account. Ever heard of diplomacy?

The Asian nations have been asking for our oil for $20 MORE then what we currently sell to the US, but we refuse them, cause we like the US more...

Influence in the market isn't just based on money (though it is a huge factor).

"For example (from the Wash. Post), uprising in Libya set the global oil price up 30% last year and the price of Canadian oil went up 55% at the same time. It's overly simplistic to assume that buying from Canada would be a cheaper and less subject to market fluctuations."
Again the supply of oil isn't the only factor that takes account into price. Demand is just as big. When Libya crashed, people were scared (regardless of how justified the fear is, it was still there) that there would be a shortage of oil, as a result they were willing to pay more for oil and the price on the global market went up.

As you said, the price of oil went up 30% cause of Libya, yet Libya produces less then 2% of the worlds oil.

Also the Canadians are selling America unrefined oil, while most of America's imports are refined oil, unrefined is a lot cheaper.

THE REASON I AM AGAINST KEYSTONE: If we refine the oil in Canada we could get 100% of the profits, all of the jobs etc. etc. rather then out sources them to America. Also by building new refineries (rather then keeping the old ones) they will naturally be more up to date and be following tighter environmental regulation making them, if only slightly, better for the environment.

It is an alternative that gives the most jobs and money to Canada and is more environmentally friendly then keystone.

"If it is US companies in Alberta (I may be going there to do some business with the electric folks there, Fortis Alberta, later this year, but I gigress)... Any how, if it is US companies up there, why not dismantle and ship up what is usable from the refineries not used here and reassemble up there? I know the whole refinery can't be moved as it's a freaking building/series of buildings, but surely much of the equipment could be. It would give a boost to Canada's jobs/economy as it would be Canadian's working those refineries; it would make the environmentalists feel much happier as we could then truck or rail ship refined fuels across the border into the US; and it would reduce the US dependence on middle-eastern oil."
I 100% support this.

"Draug, having our refineries in Texas near the coast is actually much more efficient because it's in closer proximity to oil tankers that are needed to ship the oil. Moving the refineries to Alberta (the middle of North America) would be incredibly inefficient because then you either need the pipeline even more, which is politically untenable, or you need to truck it all to the Gulf. Not to mention that moving our refineries to a foreign country isn't conducive to reducing our dependence on foreign oil."
Canada already has the infrastructure to get refined oil out of the country (and we are building the Northern Gateway, another pipeline to the west coast). It would actually be cheaper then having the refineries in America, but Canada, not America gets the jobs and profits off of the refined oil.

"Trade routes...Canada already has good access to both oceans, including access down into the Great Lakes, and decent ports on each coast. Developing a port in the northern parts of Canada would require far more infrastructure than it would be worth. It would benefit Russia, who has some northern seasonal ports near Norway, much more."
voluntary trade creates wealth. That is the 5th law taught in macroneconomics. Also we have no access to 1 of our 3 oceans bordering us, soon we will. That is what I am saying.

http://www.economist.com/node/21530079

"As for more land, quite a bit of northern Canada is the exposed Canadian Shield, which would make for the most awful farmland imaginable. Most of northern Ontario up into Nunavut is like that, and further west, you hit the Rockies."
The Canadian Shield only covers Eastern Canada, you'll find central Canada (Alberta and Saskatchewan, which already is where most of our agriculture is from) benefit.

"Just to name a few recent ones. Not to mention the Exxon Valdez spill wouldn't have occurred if the pipeline hadn't been built."
So you support the pipeline?

"The 20000 jobs estimate refers to “person-years” of employment — a single job that lasts two years is counted twice. The GLI report, using TransCanada’s own data, finds just 2,500 to 4,650 jobs will be created. And according to the State Department, the pipeline would provide only 20 permanent jobs."
Poor, poor economic reasoning...
Any investment in infrastructure creates mostly temporary jobs (once construction is finished, so are they). Yet both history and economics has taught us that the best way to spur the economy is investments in infrastructure, even if they are only temporary jobs.

"2ndWhiteLine....what a poor set of examples. Where all of them local disasters? Yes. The Gulf is now thriving, Alaska recoverd, etc etc etc. As I said, you people THRIVE on hysteria. In 50 years, the same morons will be bitching about how we have too much toxic waste from electric vehcile batteries...(by the way, "Electric cars" are really "COAL-POWERED cars...morons...)"
The biggest problem with the energy industry is honestly government intervention. Why are we so reliant on oil and coal? The answer is government subsidies. Oil and Coal were originally (and alongside nuclear still are) the cheapest forms of energy (minus externalities), yet the American government spends ~125 billion dollars subsidizing those industries. If we got rid of the government subsidies on oil and coal, renewable resources will be able to compete and the free market will determine which is the best form of energy.

@Draug: Fossil fuels account for 84% of the energy consumer by the states. So if you are using an electric car, yeah its probably powered by coal.

I don't support the coal industry, but I know its there and I know its powerful.

http://www.eia.gov/cneaf/solar.renewables/page/trends/table1.html

"This pipeline makes too much sense economically and strategically not to happen. Regardless of who's president in 2013 this will be built. Obama is just cynically playing politics with this to appease the environmentalists in his base. While the unions who miss out on jobs have nowhere to give their money besides the president, these environmentalists could go Green or just stay home. I just hope Harper doesn't lose patience in the next ten months or so."
He already has: http://www.economist.com/node/21543220

"What jobs!? The amount of jobs that the pipeline would create is almost nothing when it comes to our economy as a whole."
my advice: take grade 11 economics before making statements like that.

http://www.canadianbusiness.com/article/67350--low-key-start-to-northern-gateway-pipeline-hearings-in-alberta

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/cherishing-canadas-beauty-goes-beyond-borders/article2312435/?utm_medium=Feeds%3A%20RSS%2FAtom&utm_source=Home&utm_content=2312435