Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Maclean's)   The Keystone war   (www2.macleans.ca) divider line 48
    More: Interesting, Nebraska, anchormen, Keystone Pipeline, conventional oil, fifth generation, TransCanada, commodities trading, Enbridge  
•       •       •

4333 clicks; posted to Main » on 29 Jan 2014 at 9:39 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



48 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-01-29 09:46:01 AM  
What a Keystone warrior might look like:

9.media.collegehumor.cvcdn.com
 
2014-01-29 09:46:42 AM  
You want to go to war over this crappy beer?

img.fark.net
 
2014-01-29 09:47:43 AM  
3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-01-29 09:47:53 AM  

the_vegetarian_cannibal: What a Keystone warrior might look like:

[9.media.collegehumor.cvcdn.com image 600x458]


Sonofa...
 
2014-01-29 09:50:07 AM  
Here we go with the hillbillyhotness!

www.teesforall.com
 
2014-01-29 09:50:57 AM  
Is this some kind of underground movement?

www.beertripper.com
 
2014-01-29 09:52:54 AM  
LOL this thread is probably not going at all the way Subby had intended
 
2014-01-29 09:56:31 AM  

the_vegetarian_cannibal: LOL this thread is probably not going at all the way Subby had intended


Who cares? I like where this thread is going.
 
2014-01-29 10:03:52 AM  

Sapper_Topo: [3.bp.blogspot.com image 539x453]


Is that duct tape around a 30 pack accented with painters tape? If so, that's amazing! lol
 
2014-01-29 10:13:06 AM  

OhioUGrad: Sapper_Topo: [3.bp.blogspot.com image 539x453]

Is that duct tape around a 30 pack accented with painters tape? If so, that's amazing! lol


I dont know it looks like it. Weird stuff comes up when you GIS Keystone Light...
 
2014-01-29 10:13:50 AM  
galleryplus.ebayimg.com
 
2014-01-29 10:15:40 AM  
www.wearyourbeer.com
 
2014-01-29 10:17:46 AM  
I challenge you in the ultimate battle over tainted groundwater!
asset0.cbsistatic.com
 
2014-01-29 10:34:32 AM  
4.bp.blogspot.com

Problems? Invade!
 
2014-01-29 10:35:59 AM  
They need a mediator.

t.fod4.com
 
2014-01-29 10:47:58 AM  
Wow, really? We have a story involving big oil, politics, environmentalists, property rights, protests, canada, Bush, Obama, and Clinton, pretty much the Fark super-ultra-mega trifecta, and what does the thread have? shiatty beer, hot chicks, and idiots in beer box costumes?!

Meh, whatevs. Carry on y'all.
 
2014-01-29 10:54:07 AM  

PolyHatSnake: Wow, really? We have a story involving big oil, politics, environmentalists, property rights, protests, canada, Bush, Obama, and Clinton, pretty much the Fark super-ultra-mega trifecta, and what does the thread have? shiatty beer, hot chicks, and idiots in beer box costumes?!

Meh, whatevs. Carry on y'all.


The story is cool but tl:dr
 
2014-01-29 10:56:36 AM  
If some company tried to do this to me I would tell them ok, I'd be willing to sell you my land but first I would like to meet with your CEO, CFO, and a few other Board of Directors at my home.  Then, BAM, Red Wedding them.
 
2014-01-29 11:47:34 AM  
Ahh, the other side of "BUILD MORE INFRASTRUCTURE".
 
2014-01-29 11:48:43 AM  

McGrits: PolyHatSnake: Wow, really? We have a story involving big oil, politics, environmentalists, property rights, protests, canada, Bush, Obama, and Clinton, pretty much the Fark super-ultra-mega trifecta, and what does the thread have? shiatty beer, hot chicks, and idiots in beer box costumes?!

Meh, whatevs. Carry on y'all.

The story is cool but tl:dr


Short story
Pipeine going in, Nebraska say nuh-uh, Canada says whatevs bra asia will take our oil.
 
2014-01-29 12:01:54 PM  

rikkards: Pipeine going in, Nebraska say nuh-uh, Canada says whatevs bra asia will take our oil.


Actually, not quite.

FTA:
The case for TransCanada's proposed pipelinefrom the Alberta oil sands, through America's heartland, to refineries on the Gulf Coast of Texas was simple: the Texas refineries depended on declining supplies of "heavy" crude oil from Mexico and Venezuela. The landlocked oil sands had growing, cheap supplies of the kind of crude in which the refineries specialized. All that was lacking was the pipeline to get it there.
 
2014-01-29 12:14:19 PM  

Slypork: I challenge you in the ultimate battle over tainted groundwater!
[asset0.cbsistatic.com image 620x930]


That guy has awesome 6-pack abs.
 
2014-01-29 12:20:57 PM  

HeadLever: rikkards: Pipeine going in, Nebraska say nuh-uh, Canada says whatevs bra asia will take our oil.

Actually, not quite.

FTA:
The case for TransCanada's proposed pipelinefrom the Alberta oil sands, through America's heartland, to refineries on the Gulf Coast of Texas was simple: the Texas refineries depended on declining supplies of "heavy" crude oil from Mexico and Venezuela. The landlocked oil sands had growing, cheap supplies of the kind of crude in which the refineries specialized. All that was lacking was the pipeline to get it there.


Actually quite, keep reading, Nebraskans got pissed off and have more or less stopped it or at least delayed long enough. Because of this Canada has put more interest in diversifying it's energy portfolio and is looking to China and Asia as potential buyers of oil. Up until now the US has been the only country buying Canada's oil (who is the largest exporter of Oil to the US since something like 2003-2006 when the House of Saud oil fields started drying up and they had to start filling with water to get to the bottom of their wells).

FTA
In any case, it was clear now that the issue had been taken over by domestic U.S. politics. Back in Ottawa, Harper drew his own http://pm.gc.ca/eng/photo-gallery/pm-visits-china">lesson from the delays. On Feb. 7, 2012, less than a month after the permit denial, he was http://pm.gc.ca/eng/news/2012/02/09/pm-speaks-canada-china-business-fo rum">on a plane to http://pm.gc.ca/eng/news/2012/02/09/pm-speaks-canada-china-business-fo rum">China, seeking new markets for Canadian oil. Harper also told his cabinet to prioritize plans to build a pipeline west to Pacific seaports. A few months later, he conveyed a http://www.wilsoncenter.org/event/director%E2%80%99s-forum-the-right-h onourable-stephen-harper-prime-minister-canada-0">blunt message during a visit to Washington: Canada could not tolerate a world in which its only energy partner "could say no to our energy products." Said the Prime Minister: "Look, the very fact that a 'no' could even be said underscores to our country that we must diversify our energy export markets."

Until now the relationship has been good but now with the oil flowing and nowhere for it to go fast enough, people are looking east (well actually west).
 
2014-01-29 12:22:28 PM  
These idiot "journalists" need to start realizing that they aren't novelists.  If you can't get your story across in a single screen of text, possibly allowing a single Page Down press, then you're doing it wrong.

www.stargroup1.com
 
2014-01-29 12:30:06 PM  

rikkards: Actually quite, keep reading, Nebraskans got pissed off and have more or less stopped it or at least delayed long enough.


Yep, your right.  I misread your argument to say that they would send it through the US and on to Asia anyway.  Now I see you mean that they bypassed the US completely and are now just sending it to Asia from directly.
 
2014-01-29 12:33:08 PM  
 
2014-01-29 12:39:54 PM  
A well written thorough article. But the killer for me is .. the threat of Eminent Domain.

Stop right there. That's all it takes to get my ire full blown and overheated .. f*ck a bunch of Robert Kennedy and the other envrionazis, you start throwing around talk of the convincing the government to take someone's land for commercial purposes and I'm willing to go to the mats with you ..
 
2014-01-29 12:48:49 PM  

Smidge204: And those are just failures that we know about. Whole Googling those I found stories that there were 300+ incidents of pipeline leaks in North Dakota alone in 2013. I didn't even bother with spills due to deliberate attacks or natural disasters.


Yep, leaks do (and will continue to) happen.  That does not mean that we should not build more as other transportation modes can be even worse.  You can search for accidents regarding  rail, barge or of course truck transportation.

For a realistic look at the matter, here is a good article.
 
2014-01-29 12:50:02 PM  

Clemkadidlefark: A well written thorough article. But the killer for me is .. the threat of Eminent Domain.

Stop right there. That's all it takes to get my ire full blown and overheated .. f*ck a bunch of Robert Kennedy and the other envrionazis, you start throwing around talk of the convincing the government to take someone's land for commercial purposes and I'm willing to go to the mats with you ..


Yep, you want to have any proposal go down in flames, start talking about taking their property away.
 
2014-01-29 01:05:06 PM  

Clemkadidlefark: A well written thorough article. But the killer for me is .. the threat of Eminent Domain.

Stop right there. That's all it takes to get my ire full blown and overheated .. f*ck a bunch of Robert Kennedy and the other envrionazis, you start throwing around talk of the convincing the government to take someone's land for commercial purposes and I'm willing to go to the mats with you ..


Bash Kennedy, and dislike eminent domain?  You of course are consistent in your beliefs, and didn't vote for Bush:

http://www.austinchronicle.com/issues/vol16/issue42/pols.bushstadium .h tml
 
2014-01-29 01:24:48 PM  

PunGent: Bash Kennedy, and dislike eminent domain?  You of course are consistent in your beliefs, and didn't vote for Bush:

http://www.austinchronicle.com/issues/vol16/issue42/pols.bushstadium .h tml


Not sure where this 'b-b-b-but Bush!' point really conflicts with the dislike of using eminent domain for private owned development. Are you mad that he acted conservative on some issues but liberal on others?
 
2014-01-29 01:37:52 PM  

HeadLever: PunGent: Bash Kennedy, and dislike eminent domain?  You of course are consistent in your beliefs, and didn't vote for Bush:

http://www.austinchronicle.com/issues/vol16/issue42/pols.bushstadium .h tml

Not sure where this 'b-b-b-but Bush!' point really conflicts with the dislike of using eminent domain for private owned development. Are you mad that he acted conservative on some issues but liberal on others?


I've got Clem color-coded as knee-jerk Republican, and I'm curious where his limits are.

I suspect anyone who uses the word 'environazis' is either trolling or not very bright, since concern for the food we eat and the water we drink is JUST LIKE tossing people in ovens, doncha know...
 
2014-01-29 01:43:25 PM  

Clemkadidlefark: A well written thorough article. But the killer for me is .. the threat of Eminent Domain.

Stop right there. That's all it takes to get my ire full blown and overheated .. f*ck a bunch of Robert Kennedy and the other envrionazis, you start throwing around talk of the convincing the government to take someone's land for commercial purposes and I'm willing to go to the mats with you ..


Yep. That was the detail that got me irritated enough to finish that long article. Been there, not fun.

/csb
City of Austin wanted to put a cell tower on a hilltop my family owns. We offered them a lease, but they wanted to buy out-right. They wouldn't go any higher than a fraction of what the land is worth, and when we politely told them "sorry, no deal", they hit us with a eminent domain threat. Now this is land that has been handed down in the same family since TX was it's own country, so that hurt. Long, sordid story short, they were making the same offers and threats to a neighbor of ours who is also our lawyer. He convinced them to go elsewhere.
 
2014-01-29 02:58:39 PM  
I don't always read long articles, but this one was well done, all on one page, and very interesting.

It highlights one important factor in why this is delayed: the split in the Republican party between those in favor of big business and those in favor of individual rights. The ranchers, like many farmers I've met, are more interested in protecting their land and their rights to it. Eminent domain laws upset a lot of people on both sides of the aisle, and it's magnified when the land is being taken for private industry instead of public works; not that the latter is easy to do.
 
2014-01-29 03:17:54 PM  
Eminent domain to build a pipeline or a highway or high speed rail is what eminent domain was made for.  Eminent domain so the mayor's cousin can build a fancy shopping center where your farm used to be is not.  This is definitely the former and not the latter.

The alternative to the pipeline is lots and lots of trains which surprisingly makes one of the biggest opponents of Keystone very rich(er) and he throws untold millions of dollars at politicians.  This is the real reason Keystone keeps getting delayed.
 
2014-01-29 03:18:14 PM  
If only there were some kind of cops they could send in to keep the peace during the Keystone Wars.
 
2014-01-29 04:11:45 PM  

HeadLever: That does not mean that we should not build more as other transportation modes can be even worse.



"Because the single-largest environmental impact of a pipeline is the construction"

But to address your entirely new, unrelated point: Here's a crazy idea: How about we put some effort into not needing as much oil? Less need for oil means less of it needs to be carted around, meaning spills will be less frequent and less severe.
=Smidge=
 
2014-01-29 04:23:28 PM  

Smidge204: But to address your entirely new, unrelated point: Here's a crazy idea: How about we put some effort into not needing as much oil? Less need for oil means less of it needs to be carted around, meaning spills will be less frequent and less severe.


Why not both?  You work on cutting demand and I'll work on maintaining access to the product we do (and will continue to) need.

Cutting off supply in order to diminish demand is a pretty dumb thing to do.
 
2014-01-29 05:17:54 PM  

HeadLever: Why not both? You work on cutting demand and I'll work on maintaining access to the product we do (and will continue to) need.


Why not both? Because continuing to use petroleum is short sighted, and with supplies being limited it is a matter of when - not if - we run out. The mere fact that tar sands are now profitable to extract should be ringing alarm bells throughout the industry and the general public that all the easy to get stuff is going or gone.

Only an idiot would not take the opportunity to start weening themselves off of an addiction that will become impossible to sustain.

As for cutting off: The Keystone XL pipeline would provide roughly 3% of the petroleum used in the entire US on a daily basis. That's assuming it runs at peak design flow, and assuming that all of it goes to US markets. That's hardly cutting off. We seem to be getting by fine without it, so let's invest in making sure it stays that way into the foreseeable future rather than digging ourselves in to a deeper figurative and literal hole.
=Smidge=
 
2014-01-29 06:09:14 PM  

Smidge204: Because continuing to use petroleum is short sighted, and with supplies being limited it is a matter of when - not if - we run out.


Why is it shortsighted?  It is the most economical source of energy and resources we currently have.  All energy has issues associated with it.  Just because tar sand is now economical doesn't mean that energy cost is necessarily going up, it also means that we are getting better at extracting the resources.  Look at the world of energy that fracking opened up.


Only an idiot would not take the opportunity to start weening themselves off of an addiction that will become impossible to sustain.

And that will happen when the price of this type of energy becomes high in relation to other types of energy.  We are already engaged in alternative energy development.  That will continue.


As for cutting off: The Keystone XL pipeline would provide roughly 3% of the petroleum used in the entire US on a daily basis.

My argument about cutting off supply is not in the context of just the Keystone pipeline, but the context of generally being opposed to any new petroleum infrastructure improvement.
 
2014-01-29 07:22:01 PM  

the_vegetarian_cannibal: LOL this thread is probably not going at all the way Subby had intended


awesomegifs.com
 
2014-01-29 08:13:34 PM  
I admit: after a while I only skimmed tfa.  But, did I read right?  Was a lifelong Republican saved by the short-haired, protest-organizing, Democratic woman?

*snert*
 
2014-01-29 09:13:32 PM  
1. Why didn't they just re-route the pipeline? I don't think it would have cost more than the lobby money.

2. A Canadian pipeline to BC may not be that easy. They will want to go through tribal lands.

3. I like that TransCanada's response to spill concerns is "We'll just add these 57 safety enhancements that we keep around but don't implement unless people make a fuss."
 
2014-01-29 10:15:18 PM  

morg: Why didn't they just re-route the pipeline? I don't think it would have cost more than the lobby money.


that means longer pipeline that costs more, has a higher chance of leaking, restarting the permitting process and you are not guaranteed that you will run into the same problem with the new alignment.

Changing the pipeline alignment is not as simple as updating the map.
 
2014-01-30 05:14:22 AM  

HeadLever: Why is it shortsighted? It is the most economical source of energy and resources we currently have.


...so you learned nothing from the 70's oil embargo? You really wanna be that guy who cuts down the last tree on Easter Island?

HeadLever: Just because tar sand is now economical doesn't mean that energy cost is necessarily going up, it also means that we are getting better at extracting the resources.


We HAVE to get better at extracting the resources, because the easy to get stuff is gone and we have no alternative. Tar sands are more expensive to process and the product you get is of lower quality and harder to process. To use your own argument, why would you bother with that crap when there is something easier and cheaper? (Spoiler: There isn't anything easier or cheaper)

Hell, I remember about fifteen years ago when they were just starting to talk about tar sands and debating if they were economical to exploit, and how oil would have to be over $100/bbl for it to make sense (Crude was ~$10/bbl back then).


HeadLever: And that will happen when the price of this type of energy becomes high in relation to other types of energy.


And by then it'll be too late. We will be suffering economic damage while we make the transition because we didn't do it while we had the opportunity, and that economic damage from high energy costs will make the transition harder, slower and more expensive than it could have been. It'll be too little, too late.

HeadLever: My argument about cutting off supply is not in the context of just the Keystone pipeline


So it's a strawman, then? Thanks for admitting as such.
=Smidge=
 
2014-01-30 02:01:52 PM  

Smidge204: so you learned nothing from the 70's oil embargo? You really wanna be that guy who cuts down the last tree on Easter Island?


?  Not sure what you are getting at here as I already mentioned, "We are already engaged in alternative energy development.  That will continue".  Or are you advocating that we change to another, unproven energy source where we could very well have the same issues as we did with oil back in the 70s.  And I am not sure what exhausting trees on an isolated island has do with oil.  That comparison is pretty much apples and oranges.

We HAVE to get better at extracting the resources, because the easy to get stuff is gone and we have no alternative. Tar sands are more expensive to process and the product you get is of lower quality and harder to process. To use your own argument, why would you bother with that crap when there is something easier and cheaper? (Spoiler: There isn't anything easier or cheaper)

Then what the hell are you arguing about if there is 'no alternative'?  You are not even making sense now.
 
2014-01-30 03:21:31 PM  

Smidge204: And by then it'll be too late.  We will be suffering economic damage while we make the transition because we didn't do it while we had the opportunity, and that economic damage from high energy costs will make the transition harder, slower and more expensive than it could have been. It'll be too little, too late



You just said the cost of energy is high right now hence the oil sands are now profitable.  Sounds like you want you cake and eat it too.
 
2014-01-30 03:22:25 PM  

Smidge204: So it's a strawman, then? Thanks for admitting as such


So you don't know what a strawman is?  Defining the context of an argument is not a strawman.
 
Displayed 48 of 48 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report