Keystone XL

Guess Who Just Approved a Pipeline to Transport Canadian Oilsands Crude?

Liberal Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, that's who. Does this make Obama look like a chump for nixing Keystone XL?

|

CanadaPipelineFredChartrandZUMAPressNewscom
Fred Chartrand/ZUMA Press/Newscom

President Obama nixed the Keystone XL pipeline a year ago that would have transported nearly 900,000 barrels of crude oil from Alberta's oilsands regions to refineries on the Gulf Coast. Just in advance of the Paris climate change conference in 2015, President Obama found that the pipeline was not our country's national interest and declared, "The pipeline would not make a meaningful long-term contribution to our economy."

Well, another leader has decided that getting oilsands crude to foreign markets is in his country's national interest: Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. Consequently, his cabinet has approved the construction of the Kinder Morgan pipeline from Alberta that will transport about 900,000 barrels of oilsands crude per day to a port in British Columbia where it can be exported to whichever companies and countries wish to buy it. In addition, the Canadian cabinet approved the construction of the replacement for Line 3 pipeline that would transport 760,000 barrels oil from Alberta through northern Minnesota to Superior, Wisconsin.

CBC News reports:

"The decision we took today is the one that is in the best interests of Canada," Trudeau said in announcing his government's support for the two major projects. "It is a major win for Canadian workers, for Canadian families and the Canadian economy, now and into the future."

When President Obama rejected the Keystone XL project, environmental activists were ecstatic; the group 350.org released a statement praising the decision:

"President Obama is the first world leader to reject a project because of its effect on the climate. That gives him new stature as an environmental leader, and it eloquently confirms the five years and millions of hours of work that people of every kind put into this fight. We're still well aware that the next president could undo all this, but this is a day of celebration."

In response to Trudeau's decision, Aurore Fauret, campaign co-ordinator with 350.org had this to say:

Today's announcement may as well have said that Canada is pulling out of the Paris climate agreement. By approving the Kinder Morgan and Line 3 pipelines, there is no way Canada can meet those commitments. Justin Trudeau has broken his promises for real climate leadership, and broken his promise to respect the rights of indigenous peoples.

In the meantime, Republicans in Congress are calling on Donald Trump to reverse Obama's decision on the Keystone pipeline as soon as he takes office. Given the new outlets for Alberta crude, it may be too late for American workers, American families, and the American economy to "win" from the construction of the Keystone pipeline.

For more background, see my article: "The Man-Made Miracle of Oil from Sand."

Disclosure: Five years ago, my travel expenses to visit Alberta's oil sands were covered by the American Petroleum Institute. The API did not ask for nor does it have any editorial control over my reporting of this trip.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

98 responses to “Guess Who Just Approved a Pipeline to Transport Canadian Oilsands Crude?

  1. Bovine entric fermentation on climate scientology!

    1. “The Man-Made Miracle of Oil from Sand.”

      Mister Zinc approves Ron’s message.

    2. Calm Down Just Relaks – If This Sound Good For You – Popcorn First !!!
      Interested? Check – visit don’t forget to like & share
      Latest Update More HD Quality Movie Complete Available Here:
      ? ? ? http://theaterbox.club/ ? ? ?
      Happy & Enjoy to Watch For Free

      1. We demand our bots use proper fucking English around here

  2. Wait, I thought if they killed Keystone people would just leave that oil in the ground and convert to solar.

    1. Petroleum is just a solar battery.

      1. With a most impressive shelf life.

          1. Call me when the wine has turned to vinegar. We can pour it on a salad.

            1. Well, the oil has turned to whine. Does that count?

            2. When coal turns to vinegar, it’s called Listerine.

  3. Ha ha! Predictable, predicted, and ignored. Ha ha!

    1. I have found a site that quality is very good movie, and always updated at all times with good quality.
      I want to share a site, you might want to try.
      Update new HD 2016 movies
      Always watch the latest movies on this site == >> http://kingmovie.online/

  4. Ron must be getting ready to take December off.

  5. You mean to tell me that different countries have different economic interests? Pfah.

    1. There’s no such thing as countries.

      1. Oh, have we already made it to a post-border world? Nice.

        1. I don’t know about you, but I’ve never seen a border.

          1. Now that I think about it, neither have I. I even once accidentally drove into Canada because there was no helpful line on the ground.

            Maybe all those doctors are onto something.

          2. I’ve never seen a property boundary, either.

            1. That too. I’ve never seen lines on either side of my yard. If I take down my fence how will I know exactly which little piece of land I own. Thanks for the anxiety attack, Tonio.

            2. It’s uncanny how every time I start talking about national borders someone else starts talking about private property. I mean it’s still an utter non sequitur, but the strength of the correlation has to mean something.

              1. Why it’s almost like private property is demarcated by boundaries. Naaaaah

              2. It’s uncanny how every time I start talking about national borders someone else starts talking about private property. I mean it’s still an utter non sequitur, but the strength of the correlation has to mean something.

                They’re both legal constructs. No, they’re not physical, yes, they move, and they can be recognized or not recognized by the whims of powerful people.

                And while I’ve never seen a border, either national nor private, both can result in severe consequences for me if I ignore them or defy the powerful people that recognize their legal status, and the former probably comes with the most severe consequences.

              3. It’s uncanny how when someone almost effortlessly tears apart your weak argument in favor of your no-borders position, you change the subject and snark.

          3. The one I’m most familiar with is the DMZ on the Korean Peninsula. You’d certainly know it if you saw it, or if you got shot for trying to cross it in either direction.

        1. I only wish my hair was that resplendent.

  6. Ron’s just a shill for big oil!

    Disclosure: Five years ago, my travel expenses to visit Alberta’s oil sands were covered by the American Petroleum Institute. The API did not ask for nor does it have any editorial control over my reporting of this trip.

    Oh.

    Never mind, then.

    1. You believe anything a shill for big oil says?

      1. But why would he lie? It’s not like there’s any money in it, what with the solar and wind energy taking over.

  7. In the meantime, Republicans in Congress are calling on Donald Trump to reverse Obama’s decision on the Keystone pipeline as soon as he takes office. Given the new outlets for Alberta crude, it may be too late for American workers, American families, and the American economy to “win” from the construction of the Keystone pipeline.

    So, when we talk about being pro-/anti-Free Trade or globalization how does something like this figure in? Technically, Obumbles is ‘pro-‘ because TPP and Cuba, right?

    1. To mistake TPP for Free Trade is a fatal error.

      It’s an attempt to backdoor an EU-like control schema on another swath of major economies in the guise of free trade.

      1. And the US could unilaterally lower its tariffs without a treaty. The tariffs are just the hook for the real goal — spreading US copyrights all over. Disney must be satisfied lest Mickey be loosed upon the world of parody!

        1. Right, access to a larger and more regulated ‘free’ market in exchange for more regulatory capture is hardly ‘Free’. And that’s assuming the economics don’t pan out to simply redistributing wealth to Dictatorial and pro-Communist regimes.

  8. Pipelines are by far the safest way to transport oil. It’s as simple as that.

    1. But a bucket brigade would employ more people.

      1. #FrenchEmploymentPlan

      2. That’s a win/win for progs. You would have to subsidize the labor costs of the union workers to offer what the pipe did for a fraction of the cost, and you get to subsequently subsidize the environmental groups that get up in arms about all of the oil spilling from the buckets. Its perfect, I tell ya.

  9. Does this mean that Justin Trudeau isn’t the big Lefty Wet Dream anymore?

    1. Are you kidding? It will be blamed on another obstructionist group within the government, coupled with his grief over the misinterpretation of his comments on Castro.

      The tongue bathing will continue unabated.

      1. While Sandusky was a controversial figure, few can deny his enduring touch on youth sports.

      2. No, I think it’s fairly clear from the coverage he’s been getting recently in the Canadian media that the honeymoon’s over for The Hair That Walks Like A Man?.

        It’s almost as if he’s Canada’s Obama, who in turn was the Democrat’s Chauncey Gardner. Like Oakland, there’s no “there” there.

  10. “The pipeline would not make a meaningful long-term contribution to our economy.”

    Collectivist cretin spouts collectivist claptrap.

    *world swoons*

  11. When I saw the headline I was half expecting it to be that weaselly cocksucker with the flappy ears.

  12. Stop building pipelines. Build nuclear plants instead.

    1. Better yet – nuclear-powered Pipelines!

      1. How about pipelines to carry the waste up to Canada? We’ll show those fuckers!

        1. Building a different design of reactor will let us use that so-called “waste” as fuel. People just banned that design because it can be used to make weapons-grade materials as well.

          1. +1 Mr Fusion

          2. France is already reprocessing the waste into fuel.

            We don’t want the French to one-up us on technology so we decided it was dangerous and banned it.

    2. Streamline nuclear regulations and permitting and let the pieces fall where they may.

  13. The API did not ask for nor does it have any editorial control over my reporting of this trip.

    “Wink wink, nudge nudge, know what I mean?”

  14. Of course as the president-elect has pointed out, Keystone can only be built with massive use of eminent domain. But eminent-domain bashing among libertarians is *so* 2005…

    1. Here’s Reason bringing up the eminent domain issue in 2014

      https://reason.com/blog/2014/02…..individual

      Here they are lambasting Trump for eminent domain in reference to the Keystone Pipeline in January.

      https://reason.com/blog/2016/01…..scure-lega

    2. Here’s Reason bringing up the eminent domain issue regarding a pipeline in October.

      https://reason.com/archives/201…..ghts-fight

      From this, it looks like eminent domain abuse makes just about every issue of Reason.

      https://reason.com/tags/eminent-domain

      If you really want people to know more about eminent domain abuse, you should probably make a donation to Reason.

    3. Well, thankfully Ken has nothing better to do today, so he was able to point you out to Reason’s discussion on this.

      It’s been commented about as well– with libertarians being pretty outspoken about eminent domain.

      It’s interesting how people like you use ED as a wedge issue, even if you don’t actually give two fucks about the little guy being steamrolled by government. But hey, working class people are so 1960s for Democrats.

      Now tell us about income inequality while standing there in your $12,000 Armani jacket.

      1. I googled it.

    4. That’s one for the Great Scrapbook of Easily Disprovable Lies, right between “Libertarians were never against foreign wars before Obama became President” and “Libertarians have been completely silent on police abuse and brutality issues”

      1. I’m still waiting to hear about the Libertarian dog-whistles.

  15. Regulation retards economic incentives. It doesn’t abolish economic forces.

    Thinking that oil in Canada wouldn’t be burned if only America didn’t build a pipeline was ridiculous.

    Thinking that oil in Canada wouldn’t be burned if only Canadians got rid of Harper was ridiculous.

    What’s even dumber is your run of the mill progressive who believes that the credit cycle was abolished because of Obama’s regulation of Wall Street.

    Perhaps the biggest misconception today is the belief that laws and regulation are pragmatic reality where market forces are merely abstract imagination. People think libertarians are advocating market forces as an alternative to regulation and laws, but we’re really just pointing out reality–and there is no real alternative. It’s just a question of whether we should willingly subject ourselves to the negative consequences of embracing our delusions.

    Laws and regulation and the politicians who promulgate them disappear like an illusion in the face of market forces.

    1. Regulation retards economic incentives.

      This sentence needs a verb.

      Wait, never mind.

      1. Took me a second. Nice one.

    2. Regulation provides employment to lawyers.

      Especially lawyers who figure out how to exploit the regulations to, say, stop other companies from manufacturing competing medications so they could jack the price up or to, say, hire ornithologists to count spotted owls on competitors’ wood farms and corner the market in wood pulp.

  16. Obama never needs to do anything to look like a chump.

  17. Obama never needs to do anything to look like a chump.

    That’s racist.

    Oh, chUmp; never mind.

  18. “President Obama is the first world leader to reject a project because of its effect on the climate. That gives him new stature as an environmental leader…”

    LOL. In other words, he did it to stroke his ego.

    1. I’d even question the accuracy of that statement. Has nobody else nixed potential projects before, or is this is just self-congratulatory on the part of 350.org, who couldn’t claim credit for similar decisions made in Europe?

      1. who couldn’t claim credit for similar decisions made in Europe?

        Or in the U.S. throughout history? Seems like Woodrow would’ve nixed a epic number of projects now and forever when he penned the NPS into law.

    2. In other words, he did it to stroke his ego.

      Well, to stroke something, anyways . . .

  19. We need to build a proggy tear pipeline and constantly do things to upset them. It’s a renewable saline battery!

  20. Pipelines violate individual private property rights for the “public good”… which of course benefit crony oil companies most.
    No thanks.

    1. Not necessarily. Eminent domain takings aren’t the only way the land could be acquired. The pipeline would buy all of the land it could and eminent domain is usually only applied when a few holdouts want to forestall the entire project (usually at extortionist rates). It seems that no matter what someone is going to be unhappy and nobody’s hands are clean during pipeline construction projects. It’s not like private property owners are always noble creatures any more than governments.

      It’s definitely more complicated than “government steals land from noble hard-working people.” The fact that you have electricity to power the device that was used to utter this complaint on Reason is almost certainly due to eminent domain takings. How much of that should be permitted under libertarian ideals is certainly worthy of debate.

      1. as little as humanly possible.

        1. A minimum, with certainty. I’m not sure that even the most steadfast libertarian would be unwilling to bend in the face of the unintended consequence of obstructionism. Eminent domain does require compensation to property owners at a fair market value for the property. One need only look at the Dakota Pipeline kerfuffle to see that some people are not interested in fairness or even legality as they trespass to obstruct what has already been squared away.

          Good things do come to us through eminent domain, that is undeniable. That its exercise should be kept both rare and only to circumstances with an overwhelming public interest should be the norm. We don’t have enough libertarians to keep it that way, unfortunately. The only thing we can hope to achieve is penetration at higher levels of government to control the runaway use of it from the top down.

  21. “Does this make Obama look like a chump for nixing Keystone XL?”

    Yes, yes it does.

    1. To be fair, Obama looked like a chump long before he did that.

  22. Well, there you go. Oil that would have come to the US and been refined and (mostly) consumed here, through the cheapest and safest method of transport, is now going overseas to other markets through a more expensive and risky form of transport. American oil refiners lose an opportunity, and the price of crude in America takes a small bump up. Because low oil prices and volume for American refiners aren’t a contribution to our economy.

    1. I am sure Obama will get the blame when that tanker crashes into Victoria Island.

    2. Remember when Bush went to war in Iraq to get at their oil and yet the price didn’t really go up?

      I wonder when the Democrats will accuse Obama of being in Big Oil’s pocket.

  23. “…Does this make Obama look like a chump for nixing Keystone XL?…”

    Naah. It might have added confirmation, but it wasn’t necessary. He’s gotten that rep long before.

  24. Guess Who…

    Donaldus Trumpalo?

  25. Aaaaannnd my Facederp is silent on this topic. All the little swooning pretty-boy-loving fangirls have said not one word.

    1. Did you bait them with an article on it?

      1. Nahhh…I assume their silence is because of the massive cognitive dissonance, and I just leave them to stew in that.

        1. that’s no fun. here’s your big chance!

    2. All the little swooning pretty-boy-loving fangirls have said not one word.

      Of course they haven’t. They’ve all just realized to their horror that their cute, woke boyfriend’s turned out to be the main character of American Psycho.

      Some people over at Small Dead Animals have expressed some concern that the Trans-Mountain pipeline twin will never get built due to local opposition here in The Lower Rainland?. Although the proposed path of the twin doesn’t go through the City of Vancouver proper, Vancouver’s Mayor, Gregor Robertson (bought and paid for by Tides Canada, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Tides USA!) is marshaling support against it, and that greenie puppet will be a giant PITA to the construction process. The next mayoral elections can’t come soon enough.

        1. Imagine what HuffPo will have to say tomorrow!

          On second thought, don’t. Derp overload isn’t pretty.

    3. It’s like how all my proggie friends, who were all madly in love with the new “liberal, socialist” Pope never said a word about this.

  26. Obama: Cucked by a Cuck’s Cuck.

  27. What a waste of time and energy. The Keystone is designed to transport expensive Canadian oil sand oil to the US gulf coast where it can be refined. It would make more sense to build a pipeline from the west coast to the gulf coast so Alaskan oil can be refined in the US. At this time because California refuses to build new refining capacity, the Alaskan oil is shipped to Japan. The US is a net oil producer and yet we want to import oil from Canada.

    Don’t believe for a minute a coast to coast pipeline can’t be built. That’s what was said about the Alaska pipeline. Building this pipeline would mean the 5th Fleet could be based in Alaska instead of the Persian Gulf. Let the Japanese, the Iranians or the arabs themselves protect the middle east oil. Let Canada figure out how to refine their own oil.

  28. But oilsands crude oil is NOT oil. It’s actually thick tar. It’s called DILBIT – diluted bitumen – because it’s very viscous tar diluted with thinner oil so that the mixture is liquid enough to go through a pipe line.

    But if the pipeline breaks and the dilbit gets a chance to separate, the thick tar sinks to the bottom. An environmental disaster in the making…

  29. Yett it’s NOT crude oil. It is from Alberta’s oilsands regions but it’s dilbit – diluted bitumin. Thick tar viscous tar than when diluted enough will flow indeed through a pipeline. But that does NOT make it crude oil.

    And when the pipeline breaks – an environmental disaster just waiting to happen…

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.