The wrangling over the Keystone pipeline (TRP) is starting to look puny vs. other obstacles...

The wrangling over the Keystone pipeline (TRP) is starting to look puny vs. other obstacles Canadian oil sands face, including Latin American competition, retrofitting Gulf of Mexico refineries to process lighter crude from elsewhere, and B.C.'s rejection of the Northern Gateway pipeline (ENB). To push Alberta’s oil sands production to the anticipated 3M bbl/day, "another strategic pipeline option will be needed," Eurasia Group says.

From other sites
Comments (9)
  • bgold1955
    , contributor
    Comments (2350) | Send Message
    Who would have guessed there might ACTUALLY be some issues unresolved? Lets see how the heavy oil sand issue works out since their own countrymen rejected the western piece going through British Columbia. Too early to tell but quite funny at this point based on rejection.
    4 Jun 2013, 05:10 PM Reply Like
  • Matthew Brown
    , contributor
    Comments (1020) | Send Message
    Build a pipeline Saint John NB - we will take it all!
    4 Jun 2013, 05:18 PM Reply Like
  • User 11795801
    , contributor
    Comment (1) | Send Message
    This tidbit doesn't do Northern Gateway justice.


    B.C. said that they cannot "support" the building of the NG. This is just a dissenting view on the project. The project is still in review by the review committee and there is still a good chance it will go through.


    Whether B.C. likes it or not that pipeline should be built.
    4 Jun 2013, 05:18 PM Reply Like
  • Cdn_divman
    , contributor
    Comments (161) | Send Message
    Thank you for your opinion on what Canadians should be or not be doing to protect their environment. You might not be quite so gungho if the pipe was running through your backyard.
    4 Jun 2013, 07:02 PM Reply Like
  • lorneb
    , contributor
    Comments (328) | Send Message
    They did not say "They cannot support the building of the NG". What they did say is "they cannot support it as proposed", they want to know what ENB will have in place to handle any spill that may take place".


    The full 99 page report including that condition and minutes is available to the public if you wish to read it.


    There is a lot of posturing going on, much of which is political rhetoric by politicians and others who are hoping to gain something to satisfy their emotional or financial wishes.


    4 Jun 2013, 09:19 PM Reply Like
  • jack20
    , contributor
    Comments (498) | Send Message
    I believe the NG proposal contained a provision that First Nations would receive 10% of the profits. Rejection looks to me like a triple loss for Canada!
    4 Jun 2013, 05:35 PM Reply Like
  • bobby44
    , contributor
    Comments (488) | Send Message
    BC wants 2 things - #1- money. #2 assurance that the doomsday scenario has been considered. Of course it has not and it will not be considered until all of the nuts and bolts are covered in the review process.


    I believe the money thing will be handled as well but not by bashing each other. If the review is successful there will be a way.


    What we need is to find a way to responsible development in the nation. Each development on it's merits and to meet responsible concerns. Good luck with that!
    4 Jun 2013, 07:44 PM Reply Like
  • marpy
    , contributor
    Comments (1703) | Send Message
    BC has not rejected the Northern Gateway pipeline. What the BC government has said was that they were not satisfied with what Enbridge has put forward to address environmental and safety issues to date. In other words "improvements are needed before we consider approval".
    4 Jun 2013, 10:36 PM Reply Like
  • lorneb
    , contributor
    Comments (328) | Send Message
    The province of BC Environmental Assessment review panel along with others has legitimate concerns regarding oil pipelines passing through extremely rugged mountainous terrain and crossing numerous water courses. There is also legitimate concern regarding the possibility of ocean tankers getting into trouble along the coastline of BC.
    I agree these are things which need to be addressed sensibly which is what the Environmental Review Board is expected to do.


    It is however, unfortunate that some politicians and others are more interested in making rash statements to suit their own agenda. Sometimes those statements are of questionable merit and less than factual. The news media also is guilty at times of pursuing their own agenda rather than sticking strictly to the facts and they often leave out important detail that doesn't suit their frame of mind.


    People make comparisons with the Exxon Valdeze, the numerous pipeline leaks in the USA and the Gulf Coast disaster of a few
    years ago with what they see as a potential for the same in BC is understandable but may not take fact into consideration. We constantly are bombarded with rhetoric from numerous people some of whom take a sane approach and others who are of questionable sanity. The Environmental Assessment Office has to look at all submissions and concerns and get responses from the proponent of the project in an attempt to arrive at a conclusion based on fact not emotion or assumptions. Their job is not to take a stand either for or against a project but to get facts and answers to legitimate concerns.
    5 Jun 2013, 02:27 AM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Screener: Search and filter by asset class, strategy, theme, performance, yield, and much more
ETF Performance: View ETF performance across key asset classes and investing themes
ETF Investing Guide: Learn how to build and manage a well-diversified, low cost ETF portfolio
ETF Selector: An explanation of how to select and use ETFs