Biden may cancel Keystone XL pipeline permit as soon as his first day in office: source

[whaleboneman]

9 hours ago, Mama Noodle said:

 

Yeah, cancel all those jobs and the little mini economy the pipeline created. 

Exactly. Just like the wagon wheel builders jobs were cancelled.

[Credo]

10 hours ago, Mama Noodle said:

 

Yeah, cancel all those jobs and the little mini economy the pipeline created. 

And replace them with some road & bridge repairs.  

 

[Mama Noodle]

1 hour ago, Credo said:

And replace them with some road & bridge repairs.  

 

Why not keep the pipeline and the jobs AND do the above....

[Mama Noodle]

5 hours ago, Guitar God said:

Take the money and spend it on renewable energy creation. Solar, , hydro, wave power, wind power and you’ll create as many jobs. We have smart people in the country, surely they can find a solution for the windmill cancer problem. 

 

I got some bad news for the "go green" "renewable energy" crowd.

 

None of the above are viable sources of power capable of even making a dent in fossil fuel consumption. 

[placeholder]

Just now, Mama Noodle said:

 

I got some bad news for the "go green" "renewable energy" crowd.

 

None of the above are viable sources of power capable of even making a dent in fossil fuel consumption. 

The year is 2021, not 2000. 

Already it is cheaper to build solar and wind energy projects than it is just to keep running coal power plants. In addition batteries have plummeted so much in cost that now it is cheaper to use solar plus battery storage than it is to run gas peaker plants. Over the last 10 years battery costs have declined by 89%. New technologies, such as zinc-air, are already at the crucial $100 per kilowat hour of capacity. Solid state batteries are now coming online that beat standard lithium-ion batteries in storage power and safety.

[Mama Noodle]

3 minutes ago, placeholder said:

The year is 2021, not 2000. 

Already it is cheaper to build solar and wind energy projects than it is just to keep running coal power plants. In addition batteries have plummeted so much in cost that now it is cheaper to use solar plus battery storage than it is to run gas peaker plants. Over the last 10 years battery costs have declined by 89%. New technologies, such as zinc-air, are already at the crucial $100 per kilowat hour of capacity. Solid state batteries are now coming online that beat standard lithium-ion batteries in storage power and safety.

 

Nope, unless you want to start talking about fission or fusion power, none of these will ever be a viable replacement to, or capable of making a dent in, fossil fuel power. 

 

Literally impossible, at least in all of our lifetimes, no matter what source you want to read it from. 

 

Anyone trying to sell renewables as a viable alternative at this point is a snake oil salesman. 

 

Keep consuming fossil fuels and developing tech until its at the point of viability, then implement. Its not hard. 

[placeholder]

Just now, Mama Noodle said:

 

Nope, unless you want to start talking about fission or fusion power, none of these will ever be a viable replacement to, or capable of making a dent in, fossil fuel power. 

 

Literally impossible, at least in all of our lifetimes, no matter what source you want to read it from. 

 

Anyone trying to sell renewables as a viable alternative at this point is a snake oil salesman. 

 

Keep consuming fossil fuels and developing tech until its at the point of viability, then implement. Its not hard. 

Thanks for the hard info. Your mastery of the current situation is...nonexistent.

To learn something try this for starters.

Lazard.com | Levelized Cost of Energy and Levelized Cost of Storage – 2020

You also might consider that fossil fuels already are subsidized to the tune of about 5 trillion dollars worldwide per year.

A 5 Trillion Dollar Subsidy: How We All Pay For Fossil Fuels (forbes.com)

[Kenneth White]

The XL pipeline contributes to energy independence which I believe is important. As for crossing an Indian reservation the US constitution allows for eminent domain.  The Fifth Amendment provides that the government may only exercise this power if they provide just compensation to the property owners, which I am sure they have been compensated for but never talked about.

[placeholder]

1 minute ago, Kenneth White said:

The XL pipeline contributes to energy independence which I believe is important. As for crossing an Indian reservation the US constitution allows for eminent domain.  The Fifth Amendment provides that the government may only exercise this power if they provide just compensation to the property owners, which I am sure they have been compensated for but never talked about.

The United States Was Energy Independent in 2019 for the First Time Since 1957 - IER (instituteforenergyresearch.org)

And with the amazingly rapid rise of solar and wind power, us energy independence will only increase over time.

 

 

[mtls2005]

16 hours ago, blazes said:

Welcome to Wokeville.

 

Hear, hear.

 

Someone probably said the same thing about the 13th and 19th Amendments. Bloody progress, who needs it.

 

And bring back coal, right. That was a trump "promise".

 

Oh, and bring back those buggy-whip manufacturing jobs.

 

 

 

 

 

[mtls2005]

51 minutes ago, Kenneth White said:

The XL pipeline contributes to energy independence

 

You do realize it transports oil from Canada, right? Oh, wait, are you Canadian? 

[blazes]

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

The United States Was Energy Independent in 2019 for the First Time Since 1957 - IER (instituteforenergyresearch.org)

And with the amazingly rapid rise of solar and wind power, us energy independence will only increase over time.

 

 

 

And how much of that independence was predicated upon fracking (now due for shut down by Wokeville).
Oh, but I forgot:  fracking causes earthquakes.....

Still, good news for Saudi Arabia.

[Jeffr2]

2 hours ago, Mama Noodle said:

 

Why not keep the pipeline and the jobs AND do the above....

Great idea!  Why not do the project properly without trying to avoid the regulations?  Like getting approval from those who own the land.  The Indians.

 

Got it?  Doesn't seem so....

[Jeffr2]

1 hour ago, Kenneth White said:

The XL pipeline contributes to energy independence which I believe is important. As for crossing an Indian reservation the US constitution allows for eminent domain.  The Fifth Amendment provides that the government may only exercise this power if they provide just compensation to the property owners, which I am sure they have been compensated for but never talked about.

Energy independence is important.  So is protecting the environment.  Which this project tried to ignore.  Luckily, the Supreme Court sided with the laws.

 

https://apnews.com/article/1d7418b630487de192b1a47f1413cd35

 

Morris agreed with environmentalists who contended a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers construction permit program was allowing companies to skirt responsibility for damage done to water bodies.

[high plane drifter]

So many people not informed ,,,

[Thomas J]

On 1/18/2021 at 10:22 AM, webfact said:

- U.S. President-elect Joe Biden is planning to cancel the permit for the $9 billion Keystone XL pipeline project as one of his first acts in office, and perhaps as soon as his first day, according to a source familiar with his thinking.

I don't know the legal ramifications but obviously those backing the construction of the Keystone Pipeline have already spent millions based on receiving approval.  That is disastrous when companies can't invest because they have no certainty that permits can be withdrawn when the political parties change.  

The really stupid part is that they are doing this in the name of the "environment".  The oil from Canada was already coming to the USA via rail and truck.  The pipeline was a more efficient and safer way to transport the crude.  So the effect of the pipeline being cancelled will be the oil will continue to be shipped in tanker rail cars and trucks.  

[mtls2005]

On 1/18/2021 at 10:22 AM, webfact said:

Biden, a Democrat, had earlier vowed to scrap the oil pipeline's presidential permit if he became president.

 

So shouldn't come as a shock.

 

 

Look, unless this thing is transporting maple syrup, it was a massive environmental disaster in the making, and of little benefit to Americans.

 

Sometimes you need to let the things you love, in this case 'tar sands', go.

 

 

 

 

[crobe]

33 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

I don't know the legal ramifications but obviously those backing the construction of the Keystone Pipeline have already spent millions based on receiving approval.  That is disastrous when companies can't invest because they have no certainty that permits can be withdrawn when the political parties change.  

The really stupid part is that they are doing this in the name of the "environment".  The oil from Canada was already coming to the USA via rail and truck.  The pipeline was a more efficient and safer way to transport the crude.  So the effect of the pipeline being cancelled will be the oil will continue to be shipped in tanker rail cars and trucks.  

Your argument for efficiency is unfounded

The pipeline was designed to ship oil from Canada (Alberta) to the refineries on the gulf coast (Texas etc), it would be much more efficient to build the refineries in Canada near to the oil source, then no costly pipeline needed.

With the long-term trend in US crude oil consumption levelling off, or even reducing, and with the percentage of energy production by renewables increasing it is difficult to make the economic case that the US needs this extra supply at the present time.

As to your argument that oil will continue to be shipped in tanker rail cars and trucks, how do you think it gets from the Texas refineries to the rest of the country? - There are some pipelines but most goes by rail and road.

 

 

[Thomas J]

2 minutes ago, crobe said:

With the long-term trend in US crude oil consumption levelling off, or even reducing, and with the percentage of energy production by renewables increasing it is difficult to make the economic case that the US needs this extra supply at the present time.

As to your argument that oil will continue to be shipped in tanker rail cars and trucks, how do you think it gets from the Texas refineries to the rest of the country? - There are some pipelines but most goes by rail and road.

That is convoluted logic.  Because the oil is already being transported by rail and truck continue doing that.  Again the entire point of the pipeline was efficiency and pipelines are safer for the environment than oil over ground by rail or truck.  As for the reduced need for oil, the PRIVATE companies investing in the pipeline would not spend the money if there was not a need and a market for the oil and it was available more economically elsewhere.  Finally as to building refineries closer to the source of the oil, there has not been a refinery built in decades because of environmentalists. Also consider that if you refine the product in Canada close to the oil fields you still face the issue of how to get the refined rather than crude product to the USA.  The reason in is piped to Texas is that there are refineries there.  And, the system to distribute the refined products is already in place.   In the end, if environmentalists stop the production, refining, and distribution of petroleum within the USA, it will become totally reliant on other countries such as Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Mexico, Russia and others for its needs for crude and refined products.  

[kwonitoy]

https://www.keystonexl.com/maps/The oil from the oilsands has been going to the Gulf Coast for many years through the Keystone Pipeline, route above.

Keystone XL was a shortcut to eliminate some bottle necks, which is and always been the political football.

Keystone XL my lose its permit but that will not stop the flow of oil, Its just political optics because this has always been a high profile and highly publicized project

[Eric Loh]

With the second big oil spill in 2 years from the Keystone Pipeline, it is no wonder many including Biden are concern. He will do the right thing for the much battered environment last 4 years. 

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/01112019/oil-spill-keystone-pipeline-tar-sands-north-dakota-wetlands-kxl/

[placeholder]

3 hours ago, blazes said:

 

And how much of that independence was predicated upon fracking (now due for shut down by Wokeville).
Oh, but I forgot:  fracking causes earthquakes.....

Still, good news for Saudi Arabia.

Well, actually, fracking will probably shut down in the long because it's an economic disaster. The wells have a short life and new ones constantly need to be dug. This is actually old news.

"The shale industry has been burning through capital for years, posting mountains of red ink. One estimate from the Wall Street Journal found that over the past decade, the top 40 independent U.S. shale companies burned through $200 billion more than they earned. A 2017 estimate from the WSJ found $280 billion in negative cash flow between 2010 and 2017."

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Shale-Pioneer-Fracking-is-an-Unmitigated-Disaster.html

But not to worry. Renewables are making progress years and years ahead of schedule.

[onthedarkside]

A flame post that led to a bickering exchange have both been removed, along with a political trolling post.

 

[Jeffr2]

30 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

With the second big oil spill in 2 years from the Keystone Pipeline, it is no wonder many including Biden are concern. He will do the right thing for the much battered environment last 4 years. 

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/01112019/oil-spill-keystone-pipeline-tar-sands-north-dakota-wetlands-kxl/

Exactly.  What many are missing here is the environmental impact.  Which was never approved.  Making waters in the surrounding areas polluted isn't a option.

 

Congrats to Biden for stopping this until they figure out how to make it safe.

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, Thomas J said:

I don't know the legal ramifications but obviously those backing the construction of the Keystone Pipeline have already spent millions based on receiving approval.  That is disastrous when companies can't invest because they have no certainty that permits can be withdrawn when the political parties change.  

The really stupid part is that they are doing this in the name of the "environment".  The oil from Canada was already coming to the USA via rail and truck.  The pipeline was a more efficient and safer way to transport the crude.  So the effect of the pipeline being cancelled will be the oil will continue to be shipped in tanker rail cars and trucks.  

"The pipeline was a more efficient and safer way to transport the crude."

You sure about that?

Keystone Pipeline Spills 200,000 Gallons of Oil

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2017/11/keystone-oil-spill-south-dakota-spd/

 

Keystone Pipeline leaks 383,000 gallons of oil in second big spill in two years

https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2019/10/31/keystone-pipeline-leaks-gallons-oil-second-big-spill-two-years/

 

Keystone Pipeline Spills 9,120 Barrels of Oil in Dakota Wetlands

https://eos.org/articles/keystone-pipeline-spills-9120-barrels-of-oil-in-dakota-wetlands

[ChouDoufu]

6 hours ago, placeholder said:

The year is 2021, not 2000. 

Already it is cheaper to build solar and wind energy projects than it is just to keep running coal power plants. In addition batteries have plummeted so much in cost that now it is cheaper to use solar plus battery storage than it is to run gas peaker plants. Over the last 10 years battery costs have declined by 89%. New technologies, such as zinc-air, are already at the crucial $100 per kilowat hour of capacity. Solid state batteries are now coming online that beat standard lithium-ion batteries in storage power and safety.

 

if this is indeed the case, then the market will sort it out.  big oil, big pharma, big coal..........they're in it for the bucks, not for dogma.  if green power is cheaper, more efficient, more lucrative, then they'll be first in line offering products and services.

 

corporations are composed of investors who want bigly returns.  they won't turn down projects promising higher returns because they don't pollute enough.  capital follows the greater returns.

[ChouDoufu]

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

"The pipeline was a more efficient and safer way to transport the crude."

You sure about that?

Keystone Pipeline Spills 200,000 Gallons of Oil

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2017/11/keystone-oil-spill-south-dakota-spd/

 

Keystone Pipeline leaks 383,000 gallons of oil in second big spill in two years

https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2019/10/31/keystone-pipeline-leaks-gallons-oil-second-big-spill-two-years/

 

Keystone Pipeline Spills 9,120 Barrels of Oil in Dakota Wetlands

https://eos.org/articles/keystone-pipeline-spills-9120-barrels-of-oil-in-dakota-wetlands

 

those sound like big numbers, and they are, but

 

1 rail car tanker = 3.25 truck tankers = 700 barrels = 111,000 liters = 29,500 US gallons = 117,500 US quarts As you can see below there are different capacities of DOT-117 rail cars: Canada ships about 150,000 barrels of oil PER DAY on rail, mostly from the Alberta Oil Sands, because there is no more pipeline capacity remaining in the system:

https://www.partisanissues.com/2018/10/how-much-oil-can-a-rail-car-transport/#:~:text=1 rail car tanker %3D 3.25 truck tankers,no more pipeline capacity remaining in the system%3A

 

those two links equal approximately 12-13 tanker cars.  (same accident in both reports)  here's a train that spilled about 400,000 us gallons of oil.

 

CP Rail Train Derailment Spills 1.5 Million Litres Of Oil In Saskatchewan

https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/saskatchewan-freight-train-oil-spill_ca_5df2271de4b06a50a2eaeff7

 

 

 

that's just the spills.  now add in the daily spills at multiple loading and unloading facilities, the fuel used to move the fuel, wear and tear on infrastructure, etc.  then consider where the spills occur...when oil is moved by railcar or truck or boat.  are we looking at just the raw number of gallons spilled, or the overall environmental impact of where and how the spills occur.

 

i'm concerned joe's gonna make the problem worse simply to appease part of his base.

 

i thought that's what we voted to put a stop to.

 

 

[Pilotman]

Alternatives to the pipeline are far worse for the environment, trucking, shipping etc.  It should be built, but as usual with 'climate wonks' they always get this kind of stuff wrong. The Toyota Prius, and its like, is  a prime example of the same phenomena.  Think it through Dumbo's

[ChouDoufu]

trying to find the numbers is difficult, but.....

 

 

if an average train pulls 100 tankers, each with about 30,000 gallons, that's 3 million gallons per train.

 

the xl pipeline pumps about 700k barrels per day, around 29.5 million gallons, or 10 trains running concurrently.  every day.

 

at peak, i think that means when the new leg is fully operational, that goes to 830k barrels per day, about 35 million gallons or about 12 trains.

 

the oil is gonna move whether we like it or not.  question is, do we want all that black gold in a small number of pipelines, or a larger number of moving trains, or even larger number of truck tankers or barges?

 

 

i hope joe, unlike the previous regime, follows the science.

[stevenl]

He [Biden] has been very clear on this. "Last spring, a campaign official for Joe Biden said the Democratic nominee would cancel a key permit for the Keystone XL pipeline if he became president. Although that is a pretty clear signal, supporters of the project have wondered and debated if he'd really pull the pin." So looks like you did not believe he would.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/keystone-xl-pipeline-future-biden-1.5864973