ADVERTISEMENT

The keystone XL pipeline fiasco

CO. Hoosier

Hall of Famer
Aug 29, 2001
45,309
21,750
113
Turns out that Trump screwed this up. From the moment Biden hastily revoked this permit I wondered how can he have the authority to revoke it. In ordinary circumstances, a government issued permit is not revocable, particularly after the permittee has acted upon it. Well, today I found the answer. The amended presidential permit Trump signed on July 29, 2020, specifically states Keystone’s “permit may be terminated, revoked, or amended at any time at the sole discretion of the President, with or without advice provided by any executive department or agency.” Huh? That language is tantamount to no permit at all. I can’t imagine why Trump would include such language. Even if it is appropriate for POTUS to retain revocation authority, the revocation must be for good cause after notice and hearing. Trump would never invest in a large construction project under a permit containing this language.

Trump—Keystone is on you bro.
 
Why is the keystone pipeline any big deal?

Putting on my conservative hat, why do you want to give away valuable American land to a foreign company so they can build a pipeline to the gulf of Mexico to make it easier to export?

It's expected to take critical tar sands oil that's used in Midwest refineries and divert it to the gulf of Mexico where it can be exported at a higher price. Not very America First.

Plus the pipeline is proposed to go through several fresh water lakes and rivers, water that we drink and farm with. Nothing more fun than having a spill in a valuable fresh water basin.

As far as jobs they were temporary and after it's finished provide barely any sustainable employment.

Plus is old tech. Like building a better pager network in 2000. If you believe oil is the future than damn, we're in for a world of hurt both from an economic and a climate perspective as it's a finite resource and that the planet keeps getting hotter and hotter ever summer (and has basically for the last 25 years). Temps are expected to hit 102 this week in Minneapolis. What are we, the new Phoenix?

Anyway I know the GAF factor on climate stuff is super low but, giving away American land to a foreign company along with it being dangerously close to drinking water (and there have already been leaks, there always are) along with it not making a dent in our employment numbers makes me wonder why the boners for it other than to try to make it a political weapon.
 
Turns out that Trump screwed this up. From the moment Biden hastily revoked this permit I wondered how can he have the authority to revoke it. In ordinary circumstances, a government issued permit is not revocable, particularly after the permittee has acted upon it. Well, today I found the answer. The amended presidential permit Trump signed on July 29, 2020, specifically states Keystone’s “permit may be terminated, revoked, or amended at any time at the sole discretion of the President, with or without advice provided by any executive department or agency.” Huh? That language is tantamount to no permit at all. I can’t imagine why Trump would include such language. Even if it is appropriate for POTUS to retain revocation authority, the revocation must be for good cause after notice and hearing. Trump would never invest in a large construction project under a permit containing this language.

Trump—Keystone is on you bro.
I thought President Biden revoking that permit was bad policy. It’s worse that Trump screwed up and allowed Biden to do it.
 
Why is the keystone pipeline any big deal?

Putting on my conservative hat, why do you want to give away valuable American land to a foreign company so they can build a pipeline to the gulf of Mexico to make it easier to export?

It's expected to take critical tar sands oil that's used in Midwest refineries and divert it to the gulf of Mexico where it can be exported at a higher price. Not very America First.

Plus the pipeline is proposed to go through several fresh water lakes and rivers, water that we drink and farm with. Nothing more fun than having a spill in a valuable fresh water basin.

As far as jobs they were temporary and after it's finished provide barely any sustainable employment.

Plus is old tech. Like building a better pager network in 2000. If you believe oil is the future than damn, we're in for a world of hurt both from an economic and a climate perspective as it's a finite resource and that the planet keeps getting hotter and hotter ever summer (and has basically for the last 25 years). Temps are expected to hit 102 this week in Minneapolis. What are we, the new Phoenix?

Anyway I know the GAF factor on climate stuff is super low but, giving away American land to a foreign company along with it being dangerously close to drinking water (and there have already been leaks, there always are) along with it not making a dent in our employment numbers makes me wonder why the boners for it other than to try to make it a political weapon.
So they can pwn libtards.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EarlTubbs
Why is the keystone pipeline any big deal?

Putting on my conservative hat, why do you want to give away valuable American land to a foreign company so they can build a pipeline to the gulf of Mexico to make it easier to export?

It's expected to take critical tar sands oil that's used in Midwest refineries and divert it to the gulf of Mexico where it can be exported at a higher price. Not very America First.

Plus the pipeline is proposed to go through several fresh water lakes and rivers, water that we drink and farm with. Nothing more fun than having a spill in a valuable fresh water basin.

As far as jobs they were temporary and after it's finished provide barely any sustainable employment.

Plus is old tech. Like building a better pager network in 2000. If you believe oil is the future than damn, we're in for a world of hurt both from an economic and a climate perspective as it's a finite resource and that the planet keeps getting hotter and hotter ever summer (and has basically for the last 25 years). Temps are expected to hit 102 this week in Minneapolis. What are we, the new Phoenix?

Anyway I know the GAF factor on climate stuff is super low but, giving away American land to a foreign company along with it being dangerously close to drinking water (and there have already been leaks, there always are) along with it not making a dent in our employment numbers makes me wonder why the boners for it other than to try to make it a political weapon.
The oil is going to be pumped, transported and used whether there is a pipeline or not. Pipelines are more environmentally friendly than trucking the oil or transporting it by rail. The threat of spills is greater from trucking and rail. We’d rather US refineries refine it (US jobs). Infrastructure jobs are often temporary (like many in the soon to be passed infrastructure bill), but they’re good US jobs, why do Democrats want to kill them?
 
Last edited:
The oil is going to be pumped transported and used whether there is a pipeline or not. Pipelines are more environmentally friendly than trucking the oil or transporting it by rail. The threat of spills is greater from trucking and rail. We’d rather US refineries refine it (US jobs). Infrastructure jobs are often temporary (like many in the soon to be passed infrastructure bill), but they’re good US jobs, why do Democrats want to kill them?
Maybe we want the spills to be in Canada.
 
That may be the dumbest thing posted, did you read what he said or even understand?
Good job!! You sound exactly like, oh , like Crayfish!!

No worries. With a lot of practice and training up, you can sound almost exactly like DANC!! There's still hope!!
 
Why is the keystone pipeline any big deal?

Putting on my conservative hat, why do you want to give away valuable American land to a foreign company so they can build a pipeline to the gulf of Mexico to make it easier to export?

It's expected to take critical tar sands oil that's used in Midwest refineries and divert it to the gulf of Mexico where it can be exported at a higher price. Not very America First.

Plus the pipeline is proposed to go through several fresh water lakes and rivers, water that we drink and farm with. Nothing more fun than having a spill in a valuable fresh water basin.

As far as jobs they were temporary and after it's finished provide barely any sustainable employment.

Plus is old tech. Like building a better pager network in 2000. If you believe oil is the future than damn, we're in for a world of hurt both from an economic and a climate perspective as it's a finite resource and that the planet keeps getting hotter and hotter ever summer (and has basically for the last 25 years). Temps are expected to hit 102 this week in Minneapolis. What are we, the new Phoenix?

Anyway I know the GAF factor on climate stuff is super low but, giving away American land to a foreign company along with it being dangerously close to drinking water (and there have already been leaks, there always are) along with it not making a dent in our employment numbers makes me wonder why the boners for it other than to try to make it a political weapon.
In addition to what Aloha said, oil isn’t old tech or going anywhere. You are likely wearing, sitting on, walking on and looking at products made from oil as you read this post. Any transportation beyond a short range and lightweight golf cart inspired EV‘s will be powered by oil for the next 100 years. And that doesn’t even consider all the oil based products used in the EV or the pavement EV’s drive on. And what is the foreign company concern? BP and Shell are foreign, so what? USMCA is intended to eliminate these naive distinctions among friends.
 
Good job!! You sound exactly like, oh , like Crayfish!!

No worries. With a lot of practice and training up, you can sound almost exactly like DANC!! There's still hope!!
And you sound just like ignorant Stuffsh*t , oh sorry shot. Did you even bother to read what Co said and we all know? It will still be transported by rail and truck and just how do you think that keeps any spills in Canada?
 
In addition to what Aloha said, oil isn’t old tech or going anywhere. You are likely wearing, sitting on, walking on and looking at products made from oil as you read this post. Any transportation beyond a short range and lightweight golf cart inspired EV‘s will be powered by oil for the next 100 years. And that doesn’t even consider all the oil based products used in the EV or the pavement EV’s drive on. And what is the foreign company concern? BP and Shell are foreign, so what? USMCA is intended to eliminate these naive distinctions among friends.
Well you hoodwinked @Stuffshot He thinks oil products will go away and all spills will be in Canada now! Oil products will be around as long as we are , any of us typing on here anyway.
 
In addition to what Aloha said, oil isn’t old tech or going anywhere. You are likely wearing, sitting on, walking on and looking at products made from oil as you read this post. Any transportation beyond a short range and lightweight golf cart inspired EV‘s will be powered by oil for the next 100 years. And that doesn’t even consider all the oil based products used in the EV or the pavement EV’s drive on. And what is the foreign company concern? BP and Shell are foreign, so what? USMCA is intended to eliminate these naive distinctions among friends.
And, oil is critical for manufacture of fertilizers, medicine, pesticides, and herbicides (not to mention actually lubricating all those windmills and tidal wave generators).

The internal combustion engine could disappear completely and we would still (unfortunately) need oil.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CO. Hoosier
And you sound just like ignorant Stuffsh*t , oh sorry shot. Did you even bother to read what Co said and we all know? It will still be transported by rail and truck and just how do you think that keeps any spills in Canada?
Well, gee, if the spills occur in Canada, how are they loaded onto a truck or train (as you suggest) headed for the US?

Is there a category on the cargo manifest for importation of "oil spills"? Is there a tariff for importation of "oil spills"?
 
And, oil is critical for manufacture of fertilizers, medicine, pesticides, and herbicides (not to mention actually lubricating all those windmills and tidal wave generators).

The internal combustion engine could disappear completely and we would still (unfortunately) need oil.
Unfortunately ? What’s that mean? That’s like saying we unfortunately need crops, lumber, or energy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Crayfish57
In addition to what Aloha said, oil isn’t old tech or going anywhere. You are likely wearing, sitting on, walking on and looking at products made from oil as you read this post. Any transportation beyond a short range and lightweight golf cart inspired EV‘s will be powered by oil for the next 100 years. And that doesn’t even consider all the oil based products used in the EV or the pavement EV’s drive on. And what is the foreign company concern? BP and Shell are foreign, so what? USMCA is intended to eliminate these naive distinctions among friends.
Lol at you thinking the USMCA does something
 
Unfortunately ? What’s that mean? That’s like saying we unfortunately need crops, lumber, or energy.
Well, you're correct. I shouldn't have worded it like that. Some think we can get rid of oil altogether, but if nothing else it remains the only thing that makes airplanes fly. We can't get rid of it altogether.

And yes, I know about the Gossamer Albatross and Condor.
9b4a9931c1ca6120651ab3b7a3a9192b.jpg
 
The oil is going to be pumped, transported and used whether there is a pipeline or not. Pipelines are more environmentally friendly than trucking the oil or transporting it by rail. The threat of spills is greater from trucking and rail. We’d rather US refineries refine it (US jobs). Infrastructure jobs are often temporary (like many in the soon to be passed infrastructure bill), but they’re good US jobs, why do Democrats want to kill them?
We'd much rather provide millions of jobs and have as many of those jobs be long term (ie clean energy which makes up around 10% but is the fastest growing sector).

My understanding is the pipeline layout was dangerously close to fresh water basins but good point on transporting via truck and rail.

However the pipeline is a Canadian pipeline intended to get to the gulf so it could be sold at a much higher exported price overseas....so it's not an American efficiency.

Matter of fact, there's a good chance it will add price pressure because it's going to take away the current tar sands oil and export it out of the gulf.

So what's the American benefit here?
 
In addition to what Aloha said, oil isn’t old tech or going anywhere. You are likely wearing, sitting on, walking on and looking at products made from oil as you read this post. Any transportation beyond a short range and lightweight golf cart inspired EV‘s will be powered by oil for the next 100 years. And that doesn’t even consider all the oil based products used in the EV or the pavement EV’s drive on. And what is the foreign company concern? BP and Shell are foreign, so what? USMCA is intended to eliminate these naive distinctions among friends.
Oil is not a growth industry. We're long past the oil boom.

It's not going away any time soon as you said because it permeates in rubber, plastic, etc but, like coal, like propane, as an energy source it's post peak so if you want to experience an economic boom...keep your eyes on the future of energy as it has the highest potential of job creation and expansion.

All that being said, there are concerns that the keystone is actually bad for the economy. It's not like it's set up to provide quicker and more efficient access to our refineries. No, they want to use our land (have the govt reposses it via eminent domain) to get it to the gulf.

Of course a large chunk of the pipeline is going through Indian reservations cuz, that's the American way, but it's also planned to go through private property. Hopefully not through yours. Lol
 
In addition to what Aloha said, oil isn’t old tech or going anywhere. You are likely wearing, sitting on, walking on and looking at products made from oil as you read this post. Any transportation beyond a short range and lightweight golf cart inspired EV‘s will be powered by oil for the next 100 years. And that doesn’t even consider all the oil based products used in the EV or the pavement EV’s drive on. And what is the foreign company concern? BP and Shell are foreign, so what? USMCA is intended to eliminate these naive distinctions among friends.

100 years? Only a fool makes such predictions that far into the future as to what transportation will look like.

I don't believe there are even proven global oil reserves that go much beyond 2060, at current consumption rates.
 
Oil is not a growth industry. We're long past the oil boom.

It's not going away any time soon as you said because it permeates in rubber, plastic, etc but, like coal, like propane, as an energy source it's post peak so if you want to experience an economic boom...keep your eyes on the future of energy as it has the highest potential of job creation and expansion.

All that being said, there are concerns that the keystone is actually bad for the economy. It's not like it's set up to provide quicker and more efficient access to our refineries. No, they want to use our land (have the govt reposses it via eminent domain) to get it to the gulf.

Of course a large chunk of the pipeline is going through Indian reservations cuz, that's the American way, but it's also planned to go through private property. Hopefully not through yours. Lol
The most efficient and most dependable way to produce electricity is to heat water and run it through a steam turbine. If you don’t want to burn fossil fuels, then we must do the job with nukes. With the mad rush for more consumption of electricity (cars and buildings) we must start building next gen nukes now. But we aren’t believing instead we can do the job with renewables. Not gonna happen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Crayfish57
The most efficient and most dependable way to produce electricity is to heat water and run it through a steam turbine. If you don’t want to burn fossil fuels, then we must do the job with nukes. With the mad rush for more consumption of electricity (cars and buildings) we must start building next gen nukes now. But we aren’t believing instead we can do the job with renewables. Not gonna happen.

What the hell does oil have to do with electricity production? Nothing.
 
100 years? Only a fool makes such predictions that far into the future as to what transportation will look like.

I don't believe there are even proven global oil reserves that go much beyond 2060, at current consumption rates.
The oil industry no longer talks about running out of oil, thanks to companies like Schlumberger. For the foreseeable future, there are abundant quantities of oil. According to the BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2020, the world's total proven oil reserves are estimated to be around 1.73 trillion barrels, as of the end of 2019. However, this number is likely to rise because most of the world has yet to be explored using the latest technologies.6​
Nor are we anywhere close to peak energy. There are more than 1 trillion tons of proven coal reserves worldwide—enough to last around 150 years at current rates of production. There are 201.34 trillion cubic meters of proven natural gas reserves—enough to last at least 50 years. And there may be 3.0 trillion tons of methane hydrates, which is enough natural gas to fuel the world for a thousand years, according to the U.S. Geological and Geophysical Service.6​
These known and estimated reserves indicate that the peak in fossil fuel production is apparently a long way off in the future. However, given the current understanding of the origin of fossil fuels, it is virtually inescapable that total reserves are a finite resource. Peak oil represents a future threat, depending on how long it takes us to reach the peak, how rapidly production will decline post-peak, and whether and how fast fossil fuels can be replaced by other energy sources. For now, though, Hubbert’s peak theory does not appear to present a significant economic challenge in the near term.​

Carbon capture and carbon sequestration technologies are proving viable. I don’t think we have a lot to be concerned with. But still, nukes are the way forward.
 
The most efficient and most dependable way to produce electricity is to heat water and run it through a steam turbine. If you don’t want to burn fossil fuels, then we must do the job with nukes. With the mad rush for more consumption of electricity (cars and buildings) we must start building next gen nukes now. But we aren’t believing instead we can do the job with renewables. Not gonna happen.

I agree with you on nuclear. From the advancements of thorium (which is much more stable than uranium and decomposes much quicker while also not needing a giant scale reactor) to the promise of a fusion apparatus that multiple private companies all over the world say they are close to solving. 60 minutes had a feature last year where the ceo of the fusion company said that they believe the timing has shortened from 50-100 years to 20-40 years on fusion.

That's some fun stuff to talk about.
 
The oil industry no longer talks about running out of oil, thanks to companies like Schlumberger. For the foreseeable future, there are abundant quantities of oil. According to the BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2020, the world's total proven oil reserves are estimated to be around 1.73 trillion barrels, as of the end of 2019. However, this number is likely to rise because most of the world has yet to be explored using the latest technologies.6​
Nor are we anywhere close to peak energy. There are more than 1 trillion tons of proven coal reserves worldwide—enough to last around 150 years at current rates of production. There are 201.34 trillion cubic meters of proven natural gas reserves—enough to last at least 50 years. And there may be 3.0 trillion tons of methane hydrates, which is enough natural gas to fuel the world for a thousand years, according to the U.S. Geological and Geophysical Service.6​
These known and estimated reserves indicate that the peak in fossil fuel production is apparently a long way off in the future. However, given the current understanding of the origin of fossil fuels, it is virtually inescapable that total reserves are a finite resource. Peak oil represents a future threat, depending on how long it takes us to reach the peak, how rapidly production will decline post-peak, and whether and how fast fossil fuels can be replaced by other energy sources. For now, though, Hubbert’s peak theory does not appear to present a significant economic challenge in the near term.​

Carbon capture and carbon sequestration technologies are proving viable. I don’t think we have a lot to be concerned with. But still, nukes are the way forward.

I also agree on carbon capture.

It makes a lot of sense to me that one day we'll have the ability to strategically place carbon capture mechanisms all over the world that will greatly help us moderate a base line carbon rate in the atmosphere.

Along with upcoming generations continuing to change to more environmentally friendly behaviors.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aloha Hoosier
Fossil fuels is more than oil.

No kidding.... but you were responding to a post specifically about oil in a thread you made about an oil pipeline coming from oil sands. Just seemed a non-sequiter
 
Last edited:
The oil industry no longer talks about running out of oil, thanks to companies like Schlumberger. For the foreseeable future, there are abundant quantities of oil. According to the BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2020, the world's total proven oil reserves are estimated to be around 1.73 trillion barrels, as of the end of 2019. However, this number is likely to rise because most of the world has yet to be explored using the latest technologies.6​
Nor are we anywhere close to peak energy. There are more than 1 trillion tons of proven coal reserves worldwide—enough to last around 150 years at current rates of production. There are 201.34 trillion cubic meters of proven natural gas reserves—enough to last at least 50 years. And there may be 3.0 trillion tons of methane hydrates, which is enough natural gas to fuel the world for a thousand years, according to the U.S. Geological and Geophysical Service.6​
These known and estimated reserves indicate that the peak in fossil fuel production is apparently a long way off in the future. However, given the current understanding of the origin of fossil fuels, it is virtually inescapable that total reserves are a finite resource. Peak oil represents a future threat, depending on how long it takes us to reach the peak, how rapidly production will decline post-peak, and whether and how fast fossil fuels can be replaced by other energy sources. For now, though, Hubbert’s peak theory does not appear to present a significant economic challenge in the near term.​

Carbon capture and carbon sequestration technologies are proving viable. I don’t think we have a lot to be concerned with. But still, nukes are the way forward.


I would agree that there is most certainly plenty of oil available.....I don't agree with your notion that all transportation beyond short- range EVs will use oil for the next 100 years. That's entirely unknowable and egregiously hyperbolic. Most major automakers don't even plan to produce ICE cars beyond about 2035.

There's a large push in the aviation industry to create jet fuel from animal waste and plant oils.... known as SAFs. Shell and BP are active in this space. It's certainly far from a mature product and won't be replacing fossil based jet fuel in the next decade... but nobody knows beyond that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TommyCracker
I expect a Moore's law type rule of thumb for EV battery efficiency. Not a doubling every year, but maybe a doubling every 5 years. That would have pretty much all EVs with a range of 1,000 miles by 2031 and eliminate the requirement of having a gas-powered car in every garage for every family vacation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TommyCracker
I expect a Moore's law type rule of thumb for EV battery efficiency. Not a doubling every year, but maybe a doubling every 5 years. That would have pretty much all EVs with a range of 1,000 miles by 2031 and eliminate the requirement of having a gas-powered car in every garage for every family vacation.


Did you see the news last week from Form Energy regarding advancement in storage capacity? This is more applicable to the expansion of a renewable based grid.




 
Last edited:
No kidding.... but you were responding to a post specifically about oil in a thread you made about an oil pipeline coming from oil sands. Just seemed a non-sequiter
That’s fair. But those who fight the war on fossil fuels have never made that distinction to my knowledge. But yeah, I introduced.confusion bu not recognizing your . . . . nuance.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT