Keystone XL Pipeline protest

[globaleconomicollaps]

Why is this news? This is the way I see this: The Keystone pipeline will negatively impact the US balance of trade. See here for an explanation:
http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthr...315#post250315
This looks to me like a coordinated move by forces that wish to defend the dollar. Either that or the Keystone pipeline is the straw that breaks the camels back and we need to throw our bodies on the gears to save mother earth. I'm not looking forward to that.

http://www.metafilter.com/125096/Now...-makes-a-trend

For the first time in its 120 year history the board of the Sierra Club has authorized the use of civil disobedience, to protest the proposed construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline. (Previously)

On Wednesday, February 13 2013, Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune, civil rights leader Julian Bond, actress Daryl Hannah, and over 40 others were arrested in front of the White House. Today, thousands more will be protesting in DC.

[touchring]

Re: Keystone XL Pipeline protest

Why is this news? This is the way I see this: The Keystone pipeline will negatively impact the US balance of trade. See here for an explanation:
http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthr...315#post250315
This looks to me like a coordinated move by forces that wish to defend the dollar. Either that or the Keystone pipeline is the straw that breaks the camels back and we need to throw our bodies on the gears to save mother earth. I'm not looking forward to that.

http://www.metafilter.com/125096/Now...-makes-a-trend

But the Canadians can still build their own pipeline to the West Coast of Canada? The protest doesn't look like a permanent solution.

[GRG55]

Re: Keystone XL Pipeline protest

Why is this news? This is the way I see this: The Keystone pipeline will negatively impact the US balance of trade. See here for an explanation:
http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthr...315#post250315
This looks to me like a coordinated move by forces that wish to defend the dollar...

Do you seriously think this has anything to do with the US balance of trade?

Someone should ask protesting actress Daryl Hannah to explain what that means...

But the Canadians can still build their own pipeline to the West Coast of Canada? The protest doesn't look like a permanent solution.

Technically Canada is a separate nation from the USA, but when it comes to this sort of thing you couldn't tell the difference. We'll have our own pipeline protests, because it looks like too much fun down there south of the 49th...

[touchring]

Re: Keystone XL Pipeline protest

Do you seriously think this has anything to do with the US balance of trade?

Someone should ask protesting actress Daryl Hannah to explain what that means...

Technically Canada is a separate nation from the USA, but when it comes to this sort of thing you couldn't tell the difference. We'll have our own pipeline protests, because it looks like too much fun down there south of the 49th...

I am aware that Canada is a different country from the US, having been to both countries years ago, but I've always thought that the big oil fields are in Alberta so Canada will channel more oil through the pipeline in the long run than producers in the US, as such the pipeline should benefit Canada more.

I'm considering to take a position in one of the Alberta producers and maybe Transcanada itself so I've been following these news although not in detail.

My opinion is that the US will have more to lose if the oil is not piped through the US.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_sands

Most of the oil sands of Canada are located in three major deposits in northern Alberta. These are the Athabasca-Wabiskaw oil sands of north northeastern Alberta, the Cold Lake deposits of east northeastern Alberta, and the Peace River deposits of northwestern Alberta. Between them, they cover over 140,000 square kilometres (54,000 sq mi)—an area larger than England—and hold proven reserves of 1.75 trillion barrels (280×109 m3) of bitumen in place. About 10% of this, or 173 billion barrels (27.5×109 m3), is estimated by the government of Alberta to be recoverable at current prices, using current technology, which amounts to 97% of Canadian oil reserves and 75% of total North American petroleum reserves.[2]

[GRG55]

Re: Keystone XL Pipeline protest

I am aware that Canada is a different country from the US, having been to both countries years ago, but I've always thought that the big oil fields are in Alberta so Canada will channel more oil through the pipeline in the long run than producers in the US, as such the pipeline should benefit Canada more.

I'm considering to take a position in one of the Alberta producers and maybe Transcanada itself so I've been following these news although not in detail.

My opinion is that the US will have more to lose if the oil is not piped through the US.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_sands

I was being facetious in my comment about "technically being a separate nation" :-) (I am Canadian)

More seriously, the oil sands are land locked in Alberta. It's not a trivial political or economic issue to cross the Continental Divide to get to tidewater on the west coast, to get to tidewater and export from the Arctic, or to get the oil all the way to the east coast...all of which are being talked up. That is why Alberta's natural trade patterns for practically everything, not just oil exports, are to look south to the USA. It's the reason that Alberta is considered the most "American" (or redneck) of Canadian Provinces.

Do your homework before you pull the trigger.

[globaleconomicollaps]

Re: Keystone XL Pipeline protest

Do you seriously think this has anything to do with the US balance of trade?

Someone should ask protesting actress Daryl Hannah to explain what that means...

I'm just putting two and two together. The Sierra Club is a very conservative organization. For many years they opposed all immigration ( legal and illegal). It doesn't seem like a stretch to me that they might be directed from Washington. Note for instance their odd silence on the clathrate gun hypothesis. Let me quote the ArchDruid on the subject:

http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.f...ne-plumes.html

Word of the bubbling ocean up north got briefly into the media, and provoked a fascinating response. The New York Times, for example, published a story that mentioned the reports,and then insisted in strident terms that reputable scientists had proven that the methane plumes were perfectly normal, part of the Arctic Ocean’s slow response to the warming that followed the end of the last ice age. This same “nothing to see here, move along” attitude duly appeared elsewhere in the media. What makes this fascinating is that the New York Times, not that many years earlier, carried bucketloads of stories about the threat of climate change, including stories that warned about the risk that the thawing out of the Arctic might release plumes of methane into the atmosphere.

Weirdly, this same reversal seems to have guided the response – or more precisely the nonresponse – of the climate change activist community to these same reports. It might seem reasonable to expect that global warming activists would have leapt on these initial reports as ammunition for their cause; when initial estimates suggested that global warming would melt the glaciers of the Himalayas and deprive India of much of its water supply, certainly, a great deal was made of those claims. Still, that’s not what happened. Instead, a great many people who a few years ago were busily talking about the terrible risk of methane releases from the Arctic suddenly found something else to discuss once those methane releases stopped being a purely theoretical possibility.

In short, they are lying about their reasons for opposing global warming.

As far as my speculation about the US balance of trade goes. Well, it looks to me like the US is in desperate need of more oil. The deep water horizon spill and the governments response to it convinced me that the US will stop at nothing to get more oil ... except if the oil is foreign. I think this is because the US is defending the bond market and this is related to net oil imports.

You of course would have better insights into these dynamics than me.

[touchring]

Re: Keystone XL Pipeline protest

More seriously, the oil sands are land locked in Alberta. It's not a trivial political or economic issue to cross the Continental Divide to get to tidewater on the west coast, to get to tidewater and export from the Arctic, or to get the oil all the way to the east coast...all of which are being talked up.

Even though I've no experience in this industry or know much about Alberta oil, but I wouldn't see it as totally impossible, not at least with the Chinese state companies that do not always need to take profitability into consideration and are capable of spending billions without a feasibility study.

If the Canadians are willing to pipe the oil to the West Coast. I'm sure China will find a way lease or build special oil tankers to take the oil, just to deprive the US of that oil, even if that oil costs more to China than Brent imported from the Middle East.