Environmentalists win!

[thehill.com]

The company behind the Keystone XL pipeline announced on Wednesday that it's officially scrapping the project after President Biden nixed a border-crossing permit for the project.

A statement from TC Energy said that after "a comprehensive review of its options, and in consultation with its partner, the Government of Alberta, it has terminated the Keystone XL Pipeline Project."

"We value the strong relationships we’ve built through the development of this Project and the experience we’ve gained," company president and CEO François Poirier said in a statement.

The company also said that it will work with regulators and others to safely terminate the project.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't thing thing headed to defeat when Trump won and then got resurrected and green-lighted?

They will just put the thing in mothballs until the next Republican administration - hoping there will still be a market for the oil the pipeline would carry.

---

e pluribus unum

What? This will ruin our energy independence!*

*Independence when counting Canada's oil as our own.

Hi everyone,

Stupid. Pipeline incidents per ton-mile for oil transported by pipeline are _much_lower than the number of incidents per ton-mile versus rail and even lower versus trucks. And, we still need the oil. So, instead of transport the oil via the pipeline, it's gonna be transported via rail and truck. I guess that's a win as far as someone is concerned.

Robert

Please take the time to educate yourself on tar sand oil and its inherent problems and then get back to us.

btfc,

Are you referring to my post? If so, what you're saying has no bearing on the end result. As long as we use oil, it's still going to get transported.

Robert

“no bearing on the end result”

Completely untrue. Not too late to educate yourself.

btfc,

You're the one taking issue with my post but offering nothing of substance in your response. How about you educate us?

Robert

You’re the one making ridiculous statements completely devoid of any understanding of the issue.

Why not support your position with some facts?

(Which would mean, of course, that you would first need to educate yourself, no?)

btfc,

I have educated myself about it, which is why I didn't hesitate to post my comments. Here's a place for everyone to start:

[www.gray.com]

And a list of some pros and cons:

[vittana.org]

Robert



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/09/2021 06:37PM by Robert M.

The Keystone XL Pipeline's purpose is to get Canada's tar sand oil to the world market at a Gulf of Mexico port, not to the US for our exclusive use. Fun fact: US is a net petroleum exporter at the moment, albeit not of crude.

There is already a pipeline between the two points. Keystone XL would be a significant short cut and capacity boost, but that oil is still getting to market now, and much of it in a pipeline.

And why are they looking for that shortcut? To cut costs on a very expensive, resource-intensive and ecologically damaging oil source. A frack pad is nothing compared to the acres of strip mining that is oil sands, that must be heavily processed to boot.

Rail transport is problematic, too. How about we just leave it in the ground. Why do we insist on hastening our own end by propping up a technology that is literally choking the planet's ecology, when we could be investing in the future? "We're going to burn it, one way or the other" is not going to stop the damage and is a poor reason to continue.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 06/09/2021 06:41PM by Acer.

Acer,

Not necessarily when it comes to what happens to the tar sand oil after it gets to the Gulf Coast Refineries.

[www.politifact.com]

I'm all for reducing our dependence on oil from any source. However, until the time comes that we can switch to alternatives entirely, we still need to transport it in a safer manner. A pipeline is safer than rail and truck.


Robert



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/09/2021 06:44PM by Robert M.

Safer still to leave it in the ground.

It’s incredibly destructive to extract. It is the dirtiest form of oil. It’s heavily contaminated with substances that are problematic after it is refined. Its use results in significantly higher levels of carbon output than other forms of crude.

Its not really economically viable. The tar sands have basically been shut down for the last few years at current oil prices. It’s only a thing because of heavy government subsidies. It doesn’t make economic or environmental sense to transport it by rail or by truck. Piping it results in significantly higher number of problems when compared with other sources.

It can be replaced by cleaner, safer, less destructive, and more economically sensible sources.

It should stay in the ground.

Ask Siri, she knows.

But the US doesn't need it.

And tar sand extraction is truly awful. You seem to be ignoring that.

And in terms of spillage, pipelines are worse than rail: [fas.org]

They're just cheaper, which is why the tar sand folks want them.

Quote
Robert M
Acer,

Not necessarily when it comes to what happens to the tar sand oil after it gets to the Gulf Coast Refineries.

[www.politifact.com]

I'm all for reducing our dependence on oil from any source. However, until the time comes that we can switch to alternatives entirely, we still need to transport it in a safer manner. A pipeline is safer than rail and truck.


Robert

Quote
btfc
Safer still to leave it in the ground.

It’s incredibly destructive to extract. It is the dirtiest form of oil. It’s heavily contaminated with substances that are problematic after it is refined. Its use results in significantly higher levels of carbon output than other forms of crude.

Its not really economically viable. The tar sands have basically been shut down for the last few years at current oil prices. It’s only a thing because of heavy government subsidies. It doesn’t make economic or environmental sense to transport it by rail or by truck. Piping it results in significantly higher number of problems when compared with other sources.

It can be replaced by cleaner, safer, less destructive, and more economically sensible sources.

It should stay in the ground.

Ask Siri, she knows.

This ^

---

Saint Cloud, Minnesota, where the weather is wonderful even when it isn't.

Anonymous,

See these:

[www.fraserinstitute.org]

[www.canadaaction.ca]

Robert

Quote
Robert M
See these:

[www.fraserinstitute.org]

[www.canadaaction.ca]

Robert

For the record:

The Fraser Institute

"The Fraser Institute is a Canadian public policy think tank.. It has been described as politically conservative and libertarian" with "ties to a global network of... the Economic Freedom Network."

"The institute has received donations of hundreds of thousands of dollars from foundations controlled by Charles and David Koch.."


Canada Action

"In Canada, a coalition of oil and gas company executives grouped under the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) also initiated a series of Canadian actions to advocate for the oil and gas industry in Canada through mainstream and social media, and using online campaigning to generate public support for fossil fuel energy projects."

"‘Grassroots’ Canada Action Carries Deep Ties to Conservative Party, Oil and Gas Industry"


"Astroturfing is the practice of masking the sponsors of a message or organization (e.g., political, advertising, religious or public relations) to make it appear as though it originates from and is supported by grassroots participants. It is a practice intended to give the statements or organizations credibility by withholding information about the source's financial connection. "

Robert-

I hope that generally you rely on more neutral sources of information.

Quote
Robert M
Anonymous,

See these:

[www.fraserinstitute.org]

[www.canadaaction.ca]

Robert

Anon,

I use a variety of sources. In this case, facts are facts even if the source isn't as neutral as I would prefer.

RObert

Quote
Robert M
btfc,

I have educated myself about it, which is why I didn't hesitate to post my comments. Here's a place for everyone to start:

[www.gray.com]

And a list of some pros and cons:

[vittana.org]

Robert

So, an industry shill site, and did you bother to read the cons in your second link?



“ EPA: Keystone Fails on Climate “

[www.nrdc.org]



“Tar sands are an increasingly common—but expensive and dirty—source of oil. “

[www.ucsusa.org]



“ Pipeline Peril “

[www.nwf.org]



“ Alberta, Canada's oil sands is the world's most destructive oil operation—and it's growing “

[www.nationalgeographic.com]



“ Everything you need to know about the tar sands and how they impact you “

[www.greenpeace.org]



“ [refineryreport.org] “

The Canadian Sludge Council is filing an appeal.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/10/2021 12:02PM by Steve G..

btfc,

Can't say all of your sites are balanced either. For example, Greenpeace is known for mixed reporting when it comes to conspiracy and pseudoscience. It brings to mind Environmental Working Group (EWG). I followup with other sites anytime I see something from Greenpeace because of it. Like I said, pros and cons.

Robert



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/10/2021 11:22AM by Robert M.

You have children, correct? I wish them luck.

btfc,

That was uncalled for. Rudeness is unnecessary even if we disagree on this matter.

Robert

Economics had already shut it down...expansion of fracking translates into much less need for tar sands.

Robert-

I read both those sources, and I don't find them credible. In particular, the utter failure to actually enumerate the actual quantity of spills makes it untrustworthy, IMHO.

Anon,

Just a quick easily found sampling. Many other sources out there, some more credible than others. I usually check sources against Media Bias/Fact Check, which is why I have very little faith in a site like, say, Environmental Working Group.

Fraser Institute, for example, is considered right-bias but factual.

[mediabiasfactcheck.com]

Greenpeace, for example, is considered left-biased but mixed when it comes to science and factual reporting. They may publish unverifiable information that is not always supported by evidence

[mediabiasfactcheck.com]

Media Bias/Fact Check is by far one of my favorite sites, along with several fact checking sites like Snopes, Politifact, fact-check.org, Lead Stories, Full Fact, Hoax-slayer, Truthorfiction.com, Science-based Medicine, Rationalwiki, Quackwatch, and several more.

Robert

No wonder, you depend on a site run by an amateur who has been identified as using poor methodology.

Joe,

You have a better place for evaluating media and other companies? If you do, then please provide it. I definitely want to check it out and use it. Media Bias is still considered one of the better sites out there for this and is just one of many places I use for checking out sites. Never hurts to have another solid company in the rotation.

Robert



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/11/2021 04:59AM by Robert M.

Since you have already diss'd a number of the good ones for a problematic site, no. And who considers them one of the better places? I don't.

Joe,

You misunderstood my question. Greenpeace, Fraser Institute and similar sites do not evaluate the quality of other sites that report information. That's what Media Bias/Fact Check, Politifact and similar sites do. They evaluate the quality of the reporting and/or information presented on the sites like Greenpeace and Fraser Institute. Since you're not a fan of Media Bias/Fact Check, where do you go to evaluate the quality of the reporting on sites like Fraser Institute and Greenpeace? I'm definitely interested in your alternative(s) to it.

Robert