Biden Executive Order Keystone Pipeline XL

[MRSpock]

Biden uses executive order to remove permit allowing Keystone XL. Killing the project.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-...limate-crisis/

https://www.npr.org/sections/inaugur...ne-xl-pipeline

Good job. A real clear message. GOP crying about 1000 jobs which is ridiculous.

Biden showing he's not all ******** with his plan to move away from oil.

Not only that the type of oil they are mining for emit even more carbon dioxide than typical crude oil. Estimate of 5-20% more carbon admitted in the atmosphere.

The whole "it loses jobs ********" is a façade. Sure 1000 people got laid off, and that isn't a small matter for these people. But these are construction jobs. Oil lobbyists have tried to claim that the pipeline will create 100's of thousands of jobs. According to the state department it's closer to around 2,000 jobs over the course of it being built. And 35 jobs continuing after completion. These are not long time careers. This is a construction contract.

I'm extremely happy about this. IT's aggressive. It's not wish washy. And it gives a lot of energy lobbyists the finger day one. This was never going to create a ton of jobs. It was never going to lower the cost of gas. It was being built to send even dirtier than normal oil overseas to make oil companies more profits.

[SiteWolf]

well, there's a lot more to it.......firstly, there's more than 1,000 jobs involved...and the effect has a lot of indirect complications as well..........including wth do you do with the work already done, the costs already sunk

obviously, there was also the problem of WHERE some of the pipeline was going, including across native land

To me, the RIGHT thing to do would have been to SUSPEND the project, not outright kill it. I don't know that on Day 1 of his presidency he has all the info needed to just flat shut it down without discussion on alternatives, redirections, etc.

that said, if it pisses our governor off...at this point that might mean it's a good idea....Barbie Trump is getting worse by the day

[MRSpock]

Lol. Whose your governor?

But I'm only talking about jobs directly effected. If people want to go down the rabbit hole of other indirect effects. Then we'll talk about the cost/loss of jobs that'll happen as California keeps catching on fire and hurricanes start happening more frequently and become more intense.

But you are right that there's more to it than this.

[SiteWolf]

Some indirect effects are more direct than others. There are employees whose companies had federal contracts to supply various things to the project, for example. I'm not spinning further away than that, and some would call that a direct impact.

Barbie Trump aka Kristi "Don't disrespect people who choose not to wear a mask", "I know the people voted to legalize pot but I don't like it so I'll use taxpayer money to fight it", "Yes, Mr Trump, I DO think you should be added to Mt Rushmore" Noem

[mike_noodles]

It does suck for all those that lose jobs. But I think the environment is more important than money and jobs.

Many Canadians pissed about this

[WES445]

Standing Rock, Standing Rock. Standing Rock

Three cheers to the protesters at Standing Rock, the Native American community, and Water protectors. Now let's roll back Trump's attempts to open up their lands and nature preserves, especially in Alaska, to the energy industry.

[benny01]

Itd be a much more effective pipeline if we used it to take water the other direction

[Scoots]

So, the Obama administration found 5 times that the pipeline not going through was not going to keep the oil in the ground. It was going to come up regardless (it's not the US doing it so it's not under our control). The purpose of the pipeline was to get rid of the diesel trains and HORRIBLY polluting tankers moving the oil instead.

So, while killing the pipeline sounds like it's a positive step on getting off of oil, all it really does is increase the cost in money and the environment because we are still going to buy and process and use the oil anyhow.

[dbroncos78087]

Standing Rock, Standing Rock. Standing Rock

Three cheers to the protesters at Standing Rock, the Native American community, and Water protectors. Now let's roll back Trump's attempts to open up their lands and nature preserves, especially in Alaska, to the energy industry.

Yea we need to clear out ALL the oil drilling attempts in ANWR.

[Westbrook36]

So, the Obama administration found 5 times that the pipeline not going through was not going to keep the oil in the ground. It was going to come up regardless (it's not the US doing it so it's not under our control). The purpose of the pipeline was to get rid of the diesel trains and HORRIBLY polluting tankers moving the oil instead.

So, while killing the pipeline sounds like it's a positive step on getting off of oil, all it really does is increase the cost in money and the environment because we are still going to buy and process and use the oil anyhow.

Do you have those findings regarding Obama administration? "The Obama-era decision echoed a seven-year State Department review process with EPA input that concluded the pipeline would fail to serve national interests."

One of the central arguments by pipeline pushers is that tar sands expansion will move forward with or without Keystone XL. This has proved to be untrue. Dealing in tar sands oil is an expensive endeavor. It’s costly both to produce and to ship, particularly by rail, which would be an alternative to Keystone XL. Indeed, moving crude by rail to the Gulf costs twice as much as by pipe. For companies considering whether to invest in a long-lived tar sands project (which could last for 50 years), access to cheap pipeline capacity will play a major role in the decision to move forward or not. Without Keystone XL, the tar sands industry has canceled projects rather than shift to rail, subsequently leaving more of the earth’s dirtiest fuel in the ground where it belongs.

Canada's National Energy Board (NEB) and the US energy information agency (EIA) began publishing official data on crude by rail movements:
1) The long threatened deluge of Canadian tar sands to the Gulf Coast by rail never happened
2) Canadian crude comprises a tiny fraction of the crude moving by rail in the United States
3) Canadian crude shipped by rail has declined markedly, despite the delay and rejection of Keystone XL.

But the strongest argument that Keystone XL's rejection is going to result in less tar sands, rather than more tar sands by rail, comes from Shell. In late October, when Shell announced it was walking away from its 80,000 barrel per day (bpd) Carmen Creek tar sands project - a project that Shell had spent $2 billion to build over two years - the company attributed its decision to "a lack of infrastructure." In other words, Shell would rather walk away from $2 billion than move forward with its tar sands project using rail as a principal means of transportation. It's understating the case to say that rail isn't an attractive alternative for tar sands producers. In fact, you couldn't pay some tar sands companies $2 billion to even try it.

https://www.nrdc.org/stories/what-keystone-pipeline

[Westbrook36]

well, there's a lot more to it.......firstly, there's more than 1,000 jobs involved...and the effect has a lot of indirect complications as well..........including wth do you do with the work already done, the costs already sunk

obviously, there was also the problem of WHERE some of the pipeline was going, including across native land

To me, the RIGHT thing to do would have been to SUSPEND the project, not outright kill it. I don't know that on Day 1 of his presidency he has all the info needed to just flat shut it down without discussion on alternatives, redirections, etc.

that said, if it pisses our governor off...at this point that might mean it's a good idea....Barbie Trump is getting worse by the day

How often do you think oil companies care when a pipeline leaks? How many more jobs? Outside of the jobs, how much should I actually care about any of that?? Big ol' goose egg

Just because Trump ignored the evidence (a trend??) does not mean it's not clearly available for the Biden administration to review.

[Scoots]

Do you have those findings regarding Obama administration? "The Obama-era decision echoed a seven-year State Department review process with EPA input that concluded the pipeline would fail to serve national interests."

One of the central arguments by pipeline pushers is that tar sands expansion will move forward with or without Keystone XL. This has proved to be untrue. Dealing in tar sands oil is an expensive endeavor. It’s costly both to produce and to ship, particularly by rail, which would be an alternative to Keystone XL. Indeed, moving crude by rail to the Gulf costs twice as much as by pipe. For companies considering whether to invest in a long-lived tar sands project (which could last for 50 years), access to cheap pipeline capacity will play a major role in the decision to move forward or not. Without Keystone XL, the tar sands industry has canceled projects rather than shift to rail, subsequently leaving more of the earth’s dirtiest fuel in the ground where it belongs.

Canada's National Energy Board (NEB) and the US energy information agency (EIA) began publishing official data on crude by rail movements:
1) The long threatened deluge of Canadian tar sands to the Gulf Coast by rail never happened
2) Canadian crude comprises a tiny fraction of the crude moving by rail in the United States
3) Canadian crude shipped by rail has declined markedly, despite the delay and rejection of Keystone XL.

But the strongest argument that Keystone XL's rejection is going to result in less tar sands, rather than more tar sands by rail, comes from Shell. In late October, when Shell announced it was walking away from its 80,000 barrel per day (bpd) Carmen Creek tar sands project - a project that Shell had spent $2 billion to build over two years - the company attributed its decision to "a lack of infrastructure." In other words, Shell would rather walk away from $2 billion than move forward with its tar sands project using rail as a principal means of transportation. It's understating the case to say that rail isn't an attractive alternative for tar sands producers. In fact, you couldn't pay some tar sands companies $2 billion to even try it.

https://www.nrdc.org/stories/what-keystone-pipeline

The Obama era reviews were just that the pipeline not happening was not going to help the environment, not that it was good for the US overall.

And yes with the pipeline companies will make more money getting at that oil, but most don't question that the oil WILL get pulled out regardless of the pipeline going through. Not where it will go when it comes out but that someone will pay to get at it eventually. The pipeline will speed it up but the pollution is still going to happen either way. If the US goes to 100% electric vehicles and 100% clean energy we still need oil.

[R. Johnson#3]

It does suck for all those that lose jobs. But I think the environment is more important than money and jobs.

Many Canadians pissed about this

Trudeau be all like,

“I broke my promise for nothing?!”

[WES445]

Trudeau be all like,

“I broke my promise for nothing?!”

Trudeau is royally pissed about this. I assume he had a lot riding on this. I do know the Canadian indigenous communities are happy about it.

[Scoots]

Trudeau is royally pissed about this. I assume he had a lot riding on this. I do know the Canadian indigenous communities are happy about it.

How do you know? I'm not saying they are not happy about it, I just wonder how you know they are? Or is it someone else speaking for them being happy about it?