• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Stop Jerking Canada Around

Mike

Well-known member
Stop jerking Canada around
By Charles Krauthammer, Published: January 23

Fixated as we Americans are on Canada’s three most attention-getting exports — polar vortexes, Alberta clippers and the antics of Toronto’s addled mayor — we’ve somewhat overlooked a major feature of Canada’s current relations with the United States: extreme annoyance.

Last week, speaking to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Canada’s foreign minister calmly but pointedly complained that the United States owes Canada a response on the Keystone XL pipeline. “We can’t continue in this state of limbo,” he sort of complained, in what for a placid, imperturbable Canadian passes for an explosion of volcanic rage.

Canadians may be preternaturally measured and polite, but they simply can’t believe how they’ve been treated by President Obama — left hanging humiliatingly on an issue whose merits were settled years ago.

Canada, the Saudi Arabia of oil sands, is committed to developing this priceless resource. Its natural export partner is the United States. But crossing the border requires State Department approval, which means the president decides yes or no.

After three years of review, the State Department found no significant environmental risk to Keystone. Nonetheless, the original route was changed to assuage concerns regarding the Ogallala Aquifer. Obama withheld approval through the 2012 election. To this day he has issued no decision.

The Canadians are beside themselves. After five years of manufactured delay, they need a decision one way or the other because if denied a pipeline south, they could build a pipeline west to the Pacific. China would buy their oil in a New York minute.

Yet Secretary of State John Kerry fumblingly says he is awaiting yet another environmental report. He offered no decision date.

If Obama wants to cave to his environmental left, fine. But why keep Canada in limbo? It’s a show of supreme and undeserved disrespect for yet another ally. It seems not enough to have given the back of the hand to Britain, Israel, Poland and the Czech Republic, and to have so enraged the Saudis that they actually rejected a U.N. Security Council seat — disgusted as they were with this administration’s remarkable combination of fecklessness and highhandedness. Must we crown this run of diplomatic malpractice with gratuitous injury to Canada, our most reliable, most congenial friend in the world?

And for what? This is not a close call. The Keystone case is almost absurdly open and shut.

Even if you swallow everything the environmentalists tell you about oil sands, the idea that blocking Keystone would prevent their development by Canada is ridiculous. Canada sees its oil sands as a natural bounty and key strategic asset. Canada will not leave it in the ground.

Where’s the environmental gain in blocking Keystone? The oil will be produced and the oil will be burned. If it goes to China, the Pacific pipeline will carry the same environmental risks as a U.S. pipeline.

And Alberta oil can still go to the United States, if not by pipeline then by rail, which requires no State Department approval. That would result in far more greenhouse gas emissions — exactly the opposite of what the environmentalists are seeking.

Moreover, rail can be exceedingly dangerous. Last year a tanker train derailed and exploded en route through Quebec. The fireball destroyed half of downtown Lac-Megantic, killing 47, many incinerated beyond recognition.

This isn’t theoretical environmentalism. This is not a decrease in the snail darter population. This is 47 dead human beings. More recently, we’ve had two rail-oil accidents within the United States, one near Philadelphia and one in North Dakota.

Add to this the slam-dunk strategic case for Keystone: Canadian oil reduces our dependence on the volatile Middle East, shifting petroleum power from OPEC and the killing zones of the Middle East to North America. What more reliable source of oil could we possibly have than Canada?

Keystone has left Canada very upset, though characteristically relatively quiet. Canadians may have succeeded in sublimating every ounce of normal human hostility and unpleasantness by way of hockey fights, but that doesn’t mean we should take advantage of their good manners.

The only rationale for denying the pipeline is political — to appease Obama’s more extreme environmentalists. For a president who claims not to be ideological, the irony is striking: Here is an easily available piece of infrastructure — privately built, costing government not a penny, creating thousands of jobs and, yes, shovel-ready — and yet the president, who’s been incessantly pushing new “infrastructure” as a fundamental economic necessity, can’t say yes.

Well then, Mr. President, say something. You owe Canada at least that. Up or down. Five years is long enough.
 

Faster horses

Well-known member
Mike said:
Stop jerking Canada around
By Charles Krauthammer, Published: January 23

Fixated as we Americans are on Canada’s three most attention-getting exports — polar vortexes, Alberta clippers and the antics of Toronto’s addled mayor — we’ve somewhat overlooked a major feature of Canada’s current relations with the United States: extreme annoyance.

Last week, speaking to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Canada’s foreign minister calmly but pointedly complained that the United States owes Canada a response on the Keystone XL pipeline. “We can’t continue in this state of limbo,” he sort of complained, in what for a placid, imperturbable Canadian passes for an explosion of volcanic rage.

Canadians may be preternaturally measured and polite, but they simply can’t believe how they’ve been treated by President Obama — left hanging humiliatingly on an issue whose merits were settled years ago.

Canada, the Saudi Arabia of oil sands, is committed to developing this priceless resource. Its natural export partner is the United States. But crossing the border requires State Department approval, which means the president decides yes or no.

After three years of review, the State Department found no significant environmental risk to Keystone. Nonetheless, the original route was changed to assuage concerns regarding the Ogallala Aquifer. Obama withheld approval through the 2012 election. To this day he has issued no decision.

The Canadians are beside themselves. After five years of manufactured delay, they need a decision one way or the other because if denied a pipeline south, they could build a pipeline west to the Pacific. China would buy their oil in a New York minute.

Yet Secretary of State John Kerry fumblingly says he is awaiting yet another environmental report. He offered no decision date.

If Obama wants to cave to his environmental left, fine. But why keep Canada in limbo? It’s a show of supreme and undeserved disrespect for yet another ally. It seems not enough to have given the back of the hand to Britain, Israel, Poland and the Czech Republic, and to have so enraged the Saudis that they actually rejected a U.N. Security Council seat — disgusted as they were with this administration’s remarkable combination of fecklessness and highhandedness. Must we crown this run of diplomatic malpractice with gratuitous injury to Canada, our most reliable, most congenial friend in the world?

And for what? This is not a close call. The Keystone case is almost absurdly open and shut.

Even if you swallow everything the environmentalists tell you about oil sands, the idea that blocking Keystone would prevent their development by Canada is ridiculous. Canada sees its oil sands as a natural bounty and key strategic asset. Canada will not leave it in the ground.

Where’s the environmental gain in blocking Keystone? The oil will be produced and the oil will be burned. If it goes to China, the Pacific pipeline will carry the same environmental risks as a U.S. pipeline.

And Alberta oil can still go to the United States, if not by pipeline then by rail, which requires no State Department approval. That would result in far more greenhouse gas emissions — exactly the opposite of what the environmentalists are seeking.

Moreover, rail can be exceedingly dangerous. Last year a tanker train derailed and exploded en route through Quebec. The fireball destroyed half of downtown Lac-Megantic, killing 47, many incinerated beyond recognition.

This isn’t theoretical environmentalism. This is not a decrease in the snail darter population. This is 47 dead human beings. More recently, we’ve had two rail-oil accidents within the United States, one near Philadelphia and one in North Dakota.

Add to this the slam-dunk strategic case for Keystone: Canadian oil reduces our dependence on the volatile Middle East, shifting petroleum power from OPEC and the killing zones of the Middle East to North America. What more reliable source of oil could we possibly have than Canada?

Keystone has left Canada very upset, though characteristically relatively quiet. Canadians may have succeeded in sublimating every ounce of normal human hostility and unpleasantness by way of hockey fights, but that doesn’t mean we should take advantage of their good manners.

The only rationale for denying the pipeline is political — to appease Obama’s more extreme environmentalists. For a president who claims not to be ideological, the irony is striking: Here is an easily available piece of infrastructure — privately built, costing government not a penny, creating thousands of jobs and, yes, shovel-ready — and yet the president, who’s been incessantly pushing new “infrastructure” as a fundamental economic necessity, can’t say yes.

Well then, Mr. President, say something. You owe Canada at least that. Up or down. Five years is long enough.

More than enough. This is getting to be a crisis. Obama is a dangerous, incompetent twit. If he wants tax money, what better way to get it? Jobs? Benefits to towns along the way? It's not about helping our country with him, it's about HURTING it.

He hasn't got a clue what makes this world tick. What can we do? Our hands are tied. The only ones that will stand up to him are the Tea Party people. The GOP is a joke, only not funny. This is so discouraging. Keystone has a lot invested in this pipeline, I know for a fact because of what has gone on in our county alone. What's the answer? How much can Keystone stand? If they do go across Canada to the Pacific, the Republicans will get the blame, bet on that one. One thing Obama is good at is deflecting blame. Nothing sticks to him.
 

littlejoe

Well-known member
gob of $$ to be made, folks.

Canada $ is about .90 u.s.

Which has put light grades over 100 bucks a bbll, Canadian.

Some deals I'm in where 35 netbacks would work--and were projected-- are making 70!

Oil is sold u.s. $, costs are in Canadian $.

Some jrs and mid caps are smokin'!

Still lots of opportunity---and for Canadian investors, flow thru's on legitimate wildcatters are total no brainers.

More good news for Canadian oil.....this time from California....









California Crude By Rail To Grow By 300% Bringing Opportunities For Canada



Jan. 24, 2014– View Issue








Click Here To Download Exclusive Interview: Darin Selby, VP Energy Markets, Kansas City Southern Railway

Tesoro recently projected West Coast crude by rail unloading capacity to grow by more than 300%. Phillips 66 have announced new tracks to receive crude to their Santa Maria refinery, and Valero plans to build a facility in the Bay Area.

California has seen a fourfold increase in crude by rail imports from last year in particular from Canada - yet another announcement that drives home the enormous potential for rail to open up downstream markets in the region. The West Coast, in the wake of this incredible expansion and tremendous amount of potential for further network development, is anever growing epicenter for crude by rail, not to mention refinery expansions, and as a result will host Crude By Rail 2014.

The opportunities for Canadian operators, midstream, transportation providers,investors, suppliers and stakeholders have never been greater.

To realize expansion opportunities, stakeholder specific solutions must be examined and evaluated, from wellhead to refinery. Crude By Rail 2014: New Destinations, Increasing Capacity (February 25-26), the rail operator-led 3rd instalment in ABC’s massively successful series, will deliver producer, railroad and refiner insights into key strategies for optimizing the network. On top of this,West Coast markets will be explored, providing industry stakeholder with the analysis required to comprehensively determine the opportunity presented by this exciting and expanding crude by rail region. Sessions include:
•Ryan Fischer, AVP Emerging Markets, Genesee & Wyoming - Locating Available Offloading Facilities In The West Coast To Assess Connectivity, Volume Capacity, Transit Time And Transportation Costs
•Doug Johnson, SVP Supply & Trading, Western Refining - Defining The Crude Types That Fit The Current Product Slates Of Californian Refineries To Quantify Demand For Specific Crude Qualities
•Mark Smith, VP Development, Supply & Logistics, Tesoro - Examining The West Coast And Mid Continent As Potential Markets For Crude By Rail: What Is The Nature And Extent Of Investment Required To Maximize Connectivity To Domestic Supply?

Download Full Conference Program Here

Why California?

We are holding the Crude By Rail 2014: New Destinations, Increasing Capacity congress in California as requested by the industry. This is due to the high number of refineries in California and Washington and also due to the increasing amount of crude from Canada that is being brought down to the west coast.

California has seen a fourfold increase in crude by rail imports from last year, and these announcements drive home the enormous potential for rail to open up downstream markets in the region.

Click here for more information on the location and why we are holding this year's conference in California

Visit www.crude-by-rail-destinations-2014.com for more information
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Many in the Bakken some of the oil folks are now saying they don't need XL to move their oil... Rail has picked up much of the void and the pipeline is not as important an issue to them anymore...

And interestingly some of the railroads are converting or buying new engines powered by natural gas, which I think will be the fuel of the future...Besides coal- my part of the country is sitting on unlimited amounts of natural gas....

Exclusive: World buyers line up to buy U.S. natural gas

Fri Jan 24, 2014 8:18am EST



By Oleg Vukmanovic and Edward McAllister

LONDON/NEW YORK (Reuters) - Countries across the world have been quietly signing deals in recent months to import natural gas from the United States, revealing a growing appetite for the fuel overseas as domestic output soars.

Up to a dozen long-term deals, each worth billions of dollars, have been penned behind closed doors with companies in China, Japan, Taiwan, Spain, France and Chile as global demand spikes, according to company, industry and trade sources.

Through the agreements, China in particular has emerged as one of the biggest beneficiaries of cheap American natural gas that in the coming years will be piped to Gulf Coast plants and liquefied for shipment abroad in tankers.

The unannounced deals, which amount to about 2 percent of daily U.S. supply, are not the first of their kind, and they depend on U.S. government approval to construct two new liquefied natural gas (LNG) plants.

But the number of new buyers, and their global scope, show how the United States is taking steps to becoming a major export hub by stealing ahead of rivals in Australia and East Africa, successfully wooing needy Asian buyers even before projects begin construction. Global competition may squeeze profit margins on some exports of U.S. gas.

http://ca.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idCABREA0N0XS20140124


PolitiFact.com


Obama
"Thanks in part to our all-of-the-above strategy for American energy," the United States generates "more natural gas than anybody."

Barack Obama on Saturday, January 18th, 2014 in a Saturday radio address



Barack Obama says U.S. generates 'more natural gas than anybody'


During a recent radio address, President Barack Obama said the nation’s energy picture was robust.

"Thanks in part to our all-of-the-above strategy for American energy, for the first time in nearly two decades, we produce more oil here at home than we buy from the rest of the world," Obama said on Jan. 18, 2014. "We generate more renewable energy than ever, and more natural gas than anybody."

We’ve previously checked one of these claims. Earlier this month, we gave a True rating to Obama’s claim that "for the first time in nearly two decades, we produce more oil here in the United States than we buy from the rest of the world."

But we hadn’t fact-checked his claim that we generate "more natural gas than anybody." So we’ll check it here.

We turned to two widely used sources for energy data. One is the Statistical Review of World Energy, published by petroleum giant BP. The other is the website of the Energy Information Administration, an office of the U.S. Department of Energy.

According to BP’s data, United States natural gas production in 2012 was 619 million tons of oil equivalent, or 20.4 percent of the world. The only nation that came close to that was the Russian Federation, which produced 533 million tons of oil equivalent, or 17.6 percent of the world total.

So by this measurement, Obama was correct. And the Energy Information Administration data concurs that the United States was No. 1 in the world.


According to EIA -- which has figures as recent as 2011 -- the gross natural gas production by the United States was 28.5 trillion cubic feet, or 19.7 percent of the world total. The figure for Russia was 23.7 trillion cubic feet, or 16.4 percent of the world total.

That said, there are still some issues to factor in.

One is that there’s no guarantee that every country’s data is reliable, since not every nation has put the same effort into researching the question -- or, if they have, they may not be interested in sharing accurate information with economic rivals. While it would seem less likely that Russia would undercount its production than overcount it, it can’t be ruled out that, intentionally or unintentionally, the Russian figure for production is higher than these tables would suggest.

The second issue is whether it’s justified for Obama to claim a share of the credit for the United States’ burst of natural gas production.

It’s nothing new that the United States is at or near the top in natural gas production internationally. According to BP’s data, the United States and Russia have traded off the No. 1 and No. 2 spots in natural gas production ever since the data separated out the Russian Federation from the old Soviet Republics in 1985.

Since 1985, the United States has outpaced the Russian Federation in 13 years: 1985, 1986, 1995, 1997 to 2002 and 2009 to 2012. During the same period, the Russian Federation outpaced the United States from 1987 to 1994, 1996 and 2003 to 2008.

The United States’ lead over Russia has increased during Obama’s tenure. The United States produced 12 percent more natural gas than Russia in 2009, but 16 percent more than Russia in 2012. A big reason is the expansion of natural gas extracted from shale, using advanced technologies known as fracking.

In some areas of the country, fracking has kicked off an economic boom, and measured by carbon emissions at the point of combustion, natural gas represents an improvement over oil or coal. But environmentalists argue that there are other downsides to fracking, from the risk of localized water contamination to higher carbon emissions when the entire drilling and transportation cycle is considered.

We won’t referee this debate, but we will note that both advocates of drilling and environmentalists have criticized Obama, either for being too cautious about promoting natural gas development or being too eager to support it.

When we looked at Obama’s campaign promise to expedite oil and gas drilling from domestic shale formations, we rated it a Compromise, noting that the numbers can be framed in ways that can either support or weaken the case that Obama has sped up the process of developing oil and natural gas resources.

Obama did issue an executive order in 2012, titled, "Supporting Safe and Responsible Development of Unconventional Domestic Natural Gas Resources" that established an interagency working group to "facilitate coordinated" federal efforts on new types of natural gas extraction.

"While natural gas production is carried out by private firms, and states are the primary regulators of onshore oil and gas activities, the federal government has an important role to play by regulating oil and gas activities on public and Indian trust lands, encouraging greater use of natural gas in transportation, supporting research and development aimed at improving the safety of natural gas development and transportation activities, and setting sensible, cost-effective public health and environmental standards to implement federal law and augment state safeguards," the order said.

Alan Krupnick, a senior fellow at Resources for the Future, a think tank that tracks energy policy, said that the administration at the very least "has not interfered with the shale gas revolution, which I'd say is something. In my view, the Environmental Protection Agency has not been heavy-handed on environmental concerns" relating to natural gas.

Still, as the administration acknowledged, the advances in shale-based natural gas extraction largely developed due to the private sector. And given the long-term pattern, it’s clear that natural gas production in the United States was already high before Obama took office.

"Obama's claim, implied or voiced, rings hollow," said Joel Darmstadter, a senior fellow at Resources for the Future. "The shale gas fracking revolution, especially in its development phase, antedates Obama's presidency. And the bonanza it has created and the dramatic price declines it has spurred don't seem to me to be traceable to any of his administration's policies."

Our ruling

Obama said, "Thanks in part to our all-of-the-above strategy for American energy," the United States generates "more natural gas than anybody."

The best available data suggests that he’s right about the United States being No. 1 in the world in natural gas production, though it’s more in dispute whether his administration deserves credit (or, in the eyes of some environmentalists, blame) for "part" of this development, as Obama put it. On balance, we rate his claim Mostly True.
 

Steve

Well-known member
production has increased despite Obama's working to halt it... and effectively stalling exploration and production..


Imagine what it would have been like if he actually supported exploration and production..
 

ranch hand

Well-known member
OT....with all the train derailments of oil, how long before they shut that down? How much of the new drilling is on private and how much is Obama letting on federal?
 

iwannabeacowboy

Well-known member
More importantly, not that there isn't a work around, but why is Obama impeding the pipeline?

Don't care that there planes, trains and automobiles. What is the rationale for not allowing the pipeline?

Not addressing this is just a side show. Pipelines are the safest and most economical way of moving the product.

BTW OT, how do you think natural gas is going to move?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
ranch hand said:
OT....with all the train derailments of oil, how long before they shut that down? How much of the new drilling is on private and how much is Obama letting on federal?

That is a possibility- but I'm told there will always be a need for rail transport because the pipeline doesn't go to the key areas they need the Bakken crude- most of which is east and/or west...They are requiring new construction on oil cars- and restrictions on train speeds and movement to try and lessen the risk.... BUT nothing is without some risk!

I still support the XL- but I believe we should use and support a broad diversification of energy sources.... US oil, offshore oil, Canadian oil, natural gas, coal, and the green sources- solar, wind, hydro, etc...

As far as the new drilling being on private land- you are probably correct- BUT in talking with those doing the drilling, they have 7 years of sites lined up for the future before they need to look further...
 

ranch hand

Well-known member
The Record for Oil and Gas Leasing and Permitting on Federal Onshore Lands. The federal government leases less than 6 percent of its onshore lands for oil and gas development. Under the Obama Administration, the rate of leasing has slowed by about half. New acres leased between fiscal year 2006 and fiscal year 2008 dropped 55 percent from 11,635,373 to 5,283,441, and the number of new leases fell by 42 percent from 9,661 between fiscal years 2006 and 2008 to 5,568 between fiscal years 2009 and 2011. And, under President Obama’s administration, the total number of acres under lease fell by over 18 percent, from 47.2 million in fiscal year 2008 to 38.5 million in fiscal year 2011. The rate of permitting has also declined by more than one-third. During fiscal years 2006 to 2008, 20,479 federal drilling permits were approved, compared to 12, 821 for fiscal years 2009 to 2011.[vi] The time it takes to receive a permit to drill on federal lands has doubled since fiscal year 2005 when it took 154 days to receive a drilling permit compared to 307 days in fiscal year 2011. The Obama Administration issued almost 40 percent fewer permits and took twice the time to do it. Since fiscal year 2008, the amount of time that industry needs to take to “resolve any deficiencies” in an application has tripled.[vii]

By comparison, it takes only 10 days to receive a permit to drill on North Dakota state lands, where the shale oil boom has made North Dakota the second largest state oil producer in the United States. North Dakota is prospering with its unemployment rate at 3 percent and its economic growth rate at 7 percent. In Ohio, drilling permits are obtained in 14 days.[viii] And in Colorado, it takes 27 days to process a drilling permit application from its receipt to the permit issuance.[ix] Because each state has unique geography, topography, geology, hydrogeology and meteorology, the states are well suited to review these applications and they are light-years ahead of the federal government in terms of experience and know-how about their individual state lands.[x]
 

ranch hand

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
ranch hand said:
OT....with all the train derailments of oil, how long before they shut that down? How much of the new drilling is on private and how much is Obama letting on federal?

That is a possibility- but I'm told there will always be a need for rail transport because the pipeline doesn't go to the key areas they need the Bakken crude- most of which is east and/or west...They are requiring new construction on oil cars- and restrictions on train speeds and movement to try and lessen the risk.... BUT nothing is without some risk!

I still support the XL- but I believe we should use and support a broad diversification of energy sources.... US oil, offshore oil, Canadian oil, natural gas, coal, and the green sources- solar, wind, hydro, etc...

As far as the new drilling being on private land- you are probably correct- BUT in talking with those doing the drilling, they have 7 years of sites lined up for the future before they need to look further...

What state are you talking OT for the 7 year line up? North Dakota? There are 49 more states unless you count like Obama then there are 56 more states that might want to drill on federal land.
 

Mike

Well-known member
From OT's post:
"Obama's claim, implied or voiced, rings hollow," said Joel Darmstadter, a senior fellow at Resources for the Future. "The shale gas fracking revolution, especially in its development phase, antedates Obama's presidency. And the bonanza it has created and the dramatic price declines it has spurred don't seem to me to be traceable to any of his administration's policies."

Credit Bush............................................................I still miss him.
 

Mike

Well-known member
From Ranchhand's post:

The House on Wednesday approved GOP legislation that would force regulators to speed up oil-and-gas drilling permits and offer more federal lands for energy development.

Defying a White House veto threat, lawmakers voted 228-192 for the bill, with seven Democrats joining Republicans in support.

Rep. Doug Lamborn’s (R-Colo.) bill would also limit court review of energy projects and charge activists thousands of dollars to file formal administrative protests of leases and drilling permits.

It’s the latest measure from Republicans who accuse the White House of keeping too much federal land off-limits to drilling and taking too long to approve projects.

“We have tremendous potential for new onshore oil and natural-gas production on federal lands,” House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Doc Hastings (R-Wash.) said during debate.

“But the Obama administration is actively and purposely keeping these resources off-limits. Leasing and permitting delays, regulatory hurdles, and ever-changing rules are a few of the reasons energy production on federal lands is in decline,” he said.

The bill faces grim prospects in the Senate.

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/190946-house-approves-bill-to-speed-drilling-permits-open-more-lands#ixzz2rLcx6wXu
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook
 

iwannabeacowboy

Well-known member
ranch hand said:
http://energycommerce.house.gov/press-release/southern-leg-keystone-open-business-while-northern-leg-still-stuck-review


To bypass the administration’s needless delays and overcome the political turmoil, the House has now voted seven times to allow construction of the northern route to move forward. But action is also needed to ensure the tortuous review process of Keystone XL does not set a precedent for future transnational energy projects. House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI) and Rep. Gene Green (D-TX) have introduced bipartisan legislation to reform the permitting process and remove the need for future Presidential Permits. The North American Energy Infrastructure Act will bring the process for approving cross-border projects more in step with the process for approving interstate pipelines, like the southern leg of Keystone.

Beyond just Keystone XL, the U.S. will need to build dozens more cross-border pipelines and transmission lines to harness our newfound energy abundance,
but we will never build the architecture of abundance necessary to fulfill our energy potential if it takes over five years to review a single project. Speaking on his bill, Chairman Upton previously stated, “We need to wring political interference out of the energy permitting process and look to the future.”
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
(CNN) -- President Obama renewed his call to improve the nation's "crumbling" infrastructure during his State of the Union address Tuesday, saying it will create jobs and help the nation compete in the global economy.


:lol:
 

Tam

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Many in the Bakken some of the oil folks are now saying they don't need XL to move their oil... Rail has picked up much of the void and the pipeline is not as important an issue to them anymore...

Follow Midwest Energy News

In North Dakota, oil train explosion a ‘wake-up call’
Posted on 01/07/2014 by EnergyWire
By Blake Sobczak

On December 30, a BNSF Railway train hauling grain near Casselton, North Dakota, slipped off the rails and blocked a neighboring track.

A short time later, a crude oil train going the opposite way struck the derailed cars, with explosive results. Several oil tank cars burst into flames, causing no injuries but spurring many nearby residents to evacuate until New Year’s Eve as a precaution.

The disaster marked the third high-profile oil train explosion in the past six months and has reignited a debate over the relative safety of rail and pipeline transport.

The derailment also brought a quick response from the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, which warned Thursday that crude from North Dakota’s Bakken Shale “may be more flammable” than other oil types (E&ENews PM, Jan. 2).

PHMSA and the Federal Railroad Administration have stepped up inspections of North Dakota crude ever since a train carrying Bakken oil derailed and exploded in Lac-Mégantic, Quebec, this past July, killing 47 people and leveling the town center in an oil-fueled inferno (EnergyWire, July 17, 2013).

By contrast, investigators reported that the derailment about a mile west of Casselton was largely cleaned up within hours. Regular traffic along BNSF’s eastbound line had resumed as of Thursday morning, spokeswoman Amy McBeth confirmed.

Edward McConnell, Casselton’s mayor, said the uncomfortably close crash served as a “wake-up call” for the community. He called for tighter regulations on crude-by-rail movements in an interview Friday but also said he hopes new pipelines can take some tank cars off the tracks.

“Environmentalists are complaining that pipelines are dangerous to the environment, but if you’re going to wreck some land, it’s not as bad as blowing up a town,” he said.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
oil spillage in 2013, by train derailment, was more than the last 30 years combined.

Pipelines are unsafe. And the guy that owns the railways out of the North, still supports and pays off obama.

The Koch brothers are greedy Capitalists, unlike Buffett...so no pipelines for them

Maybe if the Kochs cared about the environment a little more?....
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Tam said:
Oldtimer said:
Many in the Bakken some of the oil folks are now saying they don't need XL to move their oil... Rail has picked up much of the void and the pipeline is not as important an issue to them anymore...

Follow Midwest Energy News

In North Dakota, oil train explosion a ‘wake-up call’
Posted on 01/07/2014 by EnergyWire
By Blake Sobczak

On December 30, a BNSF Railway train hauling grain near Casselton, North Dakota, slipped off the rails and blocked a neighboring track.

A short time later, a crude oil train going the opposite way struck the derailed cars, with explosive results. Several oil tank cars burst into flames, causing no injuries but spurring many nearby residents to evacuate until New Year’s Eve as a precaution.

The disaster marked the third high-profile oil train explosion in the past six months and has reignited a debate over the relative safety of rail and pipeline transport.

The derailment also brought a quick response from the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, which warned Thursday that crude from North Dakota’s Bakken Shale “may be more flammable” than other oil types (E&ENews PM, Jan. 2).

PHMSA and the Federal Railroad Administration have stepped up inspections of North Dakota crude ever since a train carrying Bakken oil derailed and exploded in Lac-Mégantic, Quebec, this past July, killing 47 people and leveling the town center in an oil-fueled inferno (EnergyWire, July 17, 2013).

By contrast, investigators reported that the derailment about a mile west of Casselton was largely cleaned up within hours. Regular traffic along BNSF’s eastbound line had resumed as of Thursday morning, spokeswoman Amy McBeth confirmed.

Edward McConnell, Casselton’s mayor, said the uncomfortably close crash served as a “wake-up call” for the community. He called for tighter regulations on crude-by-rail movements in an interview Friday but also said he hopes new pipelines can take some tank cars off the tracks.

“Environmentalists are complaining that pipelines are dangerous to the environment, but if you’re going to wreck some land, it’s not as bad as blowing up a town,” he said.


North Dakota officials have urged pipeline industry to officials to quickly — and safely — expand the network to keep pace with record production in the oil patch. The state has about 17,500 miles of pipelines, including the addition last year of 2,470 miles, roughly the distance from New York City to Los Angeles.

For weeks, no one knew about a Tesoro Corporation pipeline that broke 29 September in a remote area near Tioga. Officials say no water was contaminated or wildlife hurt, but the spill was one of the largest in North Dakota's history, estimated at 20,600 barrels. Oil oozed over an area the size of seven football fields.

Records obtained by the AP show that so far this year, North Dakota has recorded 139 pipeline leaks that spilled a total of 735 barrels of oil. In 2012, there were 153 pipeline leaks that spilled 495 barrels of oil, data show. A little more than half of the spills companies reported to North Dakota occurred "on-site," where a well is connected to a pipeline, and most were fewer than 10 barrels. The remainder of the spills occurred along the state's labyrinth of pipelines.

"The public really should know about these," Morrison with the landowner group said. "If there is a spill, sometimes a landowner may not even know about it. And if they do, people think it's an isolated incident that's only happening to them."

North Dakota also had 291 "incidents" this year that leaked a total of about 2,209 barrels of oil. Data show that all but 490 barrels were contained and cleaned up at the well site. In 2012, there were 168 spills reported that leaked 1,089 barrels of oil; all but 376 barrels were contained on site, data show. Only one incident — a crash involving an oil truck last year — was reported publicly.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/oct/25/north-dakota-oil-pipeline-spills-secrecy


Problems with the pipelines too... You heard a lot of folks, including landowners, questioning pipelines when the "Up thru the ground come a bubbling crude" September spill became public....
Thing is- as the article says- they are building pipelines as fast as they can (some say too fast)--- and, as some of the oil industry claims, really don't need the XL pipeline... And the domestic pipelines don't need State Dept or Presidential approval...
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
And the domestic pipelines don't need State Dept or Presidential approval...

I thought the reasoning behind denying the XL pipeline was because pipelines are unsafe?

Are you now saying that it is a "protectionist" issue?
 
Top