Seeking Alpha

Canada's position is that the Keystone XL (TRP) pipeline would not cause a net increase in...

Canada's position is that the Keystone XL (TRP) pipeline would not cause a net increase in carbon emissions, Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver says, responding to Pres. Obama's statement that the U.S. should approve the project only if it did not increase carbon pollution. Oliver says at least 20% of Keystone oil would be lighter crude that would not come from tar sands, and thus not carbon intensive to produce.
From other sites
Comments (23)
  • SoldHigh
    , contributor
    Comments (1013) | Send Message
     
    Facts and logic escape Obama - he's on his knees for his sun and wind supporters and has ZERO interest in making America energy independent if it isn't coming from his govt- subsidized backers. Pathetic.
    25 Jun 2013, 06:01 PM Reply Like
  • bjamesh
    , contributor
    Comments (128) | Send Message
     
    Hello? Joe, if it hasn't sunk in yet your opinion on this means zip. The burying beetles of Nebraska hold more sway than any Canadian cabinet minister. This is about votes and legacies.

     

    Your time would be better spent expediting the east-west option within the GWN.

     

    disclosure: long TRP, (ENB), (KMI)
    25 Jun 2013, 06:05 PM Reply Like
  • marpy
    , contributor
    Comments (1068) | Send Message
     
    Legacies are lasting. Cancelling Keystone only means it gets put on the shelf till a Republican Administration gets in. Providing the Republicans do not shot themselves in the foot again, this should IMO be after the next election. ;-) Actually, they will probably undo most of the lunacy Obama puts in place - They have been stone walling him at every turn - Not much if any legacy there!!!! Legacies are long lasting. In order to create a legacy, you need to be able to generate consensus between those with differences!! In other words - ZERO chance for any legacy for Obama. ;-)
    25 Jun 2013, 07:05 PM Reply Like
  • Lakeaffect
    , contributor
    Comments (1159) | Send Message
     
    Dream on, Marpy. GOP is done for. There will be 15 million new democrat voters by July 4.
    25 Jun 2013, 08:49 PM Reply Like
  • bjamesh
    , contributor
    Comments (128) | Send Message
     
    Don't know marpy, but by the looks of things Canadian oil sands crude could be exhausted by the time another Republican is in the White House. (note: estimates for resource life of oil sands ~ 100 years)
    25 Jun 2013, 09:35 PM Reply Like
  • bigbear4511
    , contributor
    Comments (287) | Send Message
     
    NO THE WORST PRESIDENT OF ALL TIME WAS BUSH! Hands down. What a mess he made.
    26 Jun 2013, 12:49 AM Reply Like
  • kcr357
    , contributor
    Comments (567) | Send Message
     
    Marpy, if keystone is refused, Canada has stated they will simply route it to the west and the oil will go to Asia though BC, or send it east to refineries in Ontario. Dumbass obama is catering to the braindead greenie wackos, who don't realize sending it to Asia would be much worse for the environment. Canada's infrastructure to move oil will be at full capacity very soon, and they will address that issue.
    26 Jun 2013, 01:28 AM Reply Like
  • Whitehawk
    , contributor
    Comments (3129) | Send Message
     
    The mission: kill coal and Canadian oil, at all costs. This is political, and idiotic.

     

    Meanwhile: no solid, defendable comprehensive energy plan in sight.
    25 Jun 2013, 07:16 PM Reply Like
  • mike904
    , contributor
    Comments (978) | Send Message
     
    Hawk, you talking to the air. Our energy plan is to make sure nobody can afford to drive. These people are insane.
    26 Jun 2013, 07:40 AM Reply Like
  • evan.prospect
    , contributor
    Comments (700) | Send Message
     
    Even if we maxed out our wind power and put turbines as many places as possible, wouldn't we only get 15% to 20% of our total power from wind? Not sure what solar would be, around 5%? I actually own GE (who makes wind turbines) and I own silver (used in solar panels) but neither are scalable for cars like oil for gas and nuclear or nat gas (for electric cars).
    25 Jun 2013, 08:09 PM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS
    , contributor
    Comments (3333) | Send Message
     
    National disgrace.

     

    Claim to concern about future generation's environment, but saddle them with debt instead.

     

    Truly sad.
    25 Jun 2013, 08:58 PM Reply Like
  • tradewin
    , contributor
    Comments (658) | Send Message
     
    Canada will not wait for the next administration. Ambitious plans in the works for a refinery and new ships for their West coast. They will sell the oil to China. And we will continue to buy petroleum from other foreign sources. The CEO of Keystone was right. It's not a matter of fossil fuels vs. alternative energy, we are going to use the oil. Who will we be buying it from?
    25 Jun 2013, 09:16 PM Reply Like
  • bigbear4511
    , contributor
    Comments (287) | Send Message
     
    wrong British Columbia shot down the deal to the west. Alberta is suffering from a brutal flood that will take a long time to clean up.
    26 Jun 2013, 12:51 AM Reply Like
  • kcr357
    , contributor
    Comments (567) | Send Message
     
    BC stated they do not support the pipeline, that doesn't mean they did, or even can, stop it. That is up the the Fed gov., BC does not have the authority under Canada's constitution to do what you are implying.
    26 Jun 2013, 01:36 AM Reply Like
  • gatlingg
    , contributor
    Comments (380) | Send Message
     
    I doubt there is a reputable climate scientist that would uphold what Joe Oliver is saying. Just because 20% might be light crude does not dismiss the effects of the other 80%. Besides the refining issue you also have the carbon intensive extraction (you can't just pump it out of the ground). This is also going to be very expensive oil because of the costs of extraction, refining & pipeline. Luckily for the canadians they will be guaranteed the right to ship it to asia once it gets to the gulf.
    26 Jun 2013, 08:29 AM Reply Like
  • Marine85
    , contributor
    Comments (267) | Send Message
     
    We are not going to let this despot dictate anymore foolishness. Americans must rise up against this tyranny.
    25 Jun 2013, 09:30 PM Reply Like
  • tuliptown
    , contributor
    Comments (1073) | Send Message
     
    the canadians don't want to ship it west, so why should the US ship it south? Either way, its bound for China. Refineries are running at 100% and there is a glut of oil in Cushing, OK (one stop on the pipeline).

     

    Let the trains do their work and the canadians can ship it west across their own territory if its such a great thing to do.

     

    t
    25 Jun 2013, 09:57 PM Reply Like
  • Marine85
    , contributor
    Comments (267) | Send Message
     
    We really need fewer low information people like you who oppose science and reason.
    26 Jun 2013, 01:16 AM Reply Like
  • Jake2992
    , contributor
    Comments (831) | Send Message
     
    I wonder if the partisans realize how idiotic they look obsessing over what will be less than 0.00000001% of the global oil supply.

     

    End the oil subsidies and let the free market take over.
    25 Jun 2013, 10:12 PM Reply Like
  • tradewin
    , contributor
    Comments (658) | Send Message
     
    A $25B dollar plan to build a pipe to the west including a refinery and ships. That glut in Cushing is soon to be relieved by the Gulf Coast Pipeline by the end of this summer. The Seaway pipeline already being used will still get some use. The only thing really holding that oil up at the coast is the lack of Jones Act ships to take it north. If there is anything to be done about the price, and artificial shortages, it should be to amend that obsolete Act.
    25 Jun 2013, 10:25 PM Reply Like
  • bakermre
    , contributor
    Comments (126) | Send Message
     
    Obama is doing the bidding of Warren Buffett, whose Burlington Northern trains carry 6000 tanker loads of Canadian crude south, at a cost about $10 per bbl above what Keystone XL transport would be. That's Obama's pay off to Buffett's 2012 campaign support. The media just doesn't report this fact. Meanwhile, Saudi crude flows majestically into Canada and east coast USA ports, with narry a whimper from David Suzuki or the environmental lobby. Guess why? The Saudi's fund The David Suzuki Foundation and give generously to the USA environmental movement.
    26 Jun 2013, 01:15 AM Reply Like
  • bjamesh
    , contributor
    Comments (128) | Send Message
     
    bakermre, I think you have mixed up Bakken Shale oil in North Dakota with Oil Sands bitumen from Alberta. BNSF does carry diluent INTO Canada for diluting the crude for mostly pipeline shipment. Almost all bitumen is shipped by pipeline and only recently is any being shipped by rail due to capacity constraints.

     

    Both CN and CP are the only railways with oil sand terminal and track ability within in Canada. Please provide a link to a valid industry or company site that cites BNSF is hauling Canadian crude south.
    26 Jun 2013, 08:33 AM Reply Like
  • tealone
    , contributor
    Comments (297) | Send Message
     
    Obama won't be happy until he makes the U.S. and the UK "pay" for their "neo-colonial" sins, as he so wrongly perceives. The root of his rage will continue to hurt this country until he is either impeached or leaves in 2016!
    26 Jun 2013, 01:58 PM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Hub
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