Permit for the Keystone XL pipeline to be canceled on Biden's first day

[DINGO Joe]

For those interested, here's an industry blog that shows all the other ways that the oil sands get to US refiners and the active projects to rework those.  The blog is only publicly available for 5 days.

https://rbnenergy.com/oil-from-the-north-country-part-2-as-more-canadian-crude-flows-south-a-push-to-expand-pipes

[Farmlands]

Didn't agree with Obama's decision back then, don't think it's that great now. It's good to have a politician in charge who wants to tackle climate change, but people are acting like this single pipeline is a huge source of concern when it's not.

[Sbane]

You posted this picture in response to a factual statement by True Federalist. If you disagree with his assertion that pipelines are the most ecologically sound way to move oil, prove it. This picture is certainly not proof. Train crashes happen. Truck accidents definitely happen. Pipelines are the best way to move oil and gas. If oil and gas is extracted from the earth, we need pipelines to move it.

I don't care what the "most ecologically sound" method of moving oil is, frankly.  As UncleSam aptly put it earlier in this thread, oil pipelines being the safest method of transport is the same as saying that hypodermic needles are the safest way to take heroin.

But moreover, imagine casually defending the relative safety of pipelines in a thread dedicated to discussing a specific pipeline that has already spilled hundreds of thousands of gallons of oil into the ecosystem.

Of course, the real goal is to stop oil and gas production

Agreed.

and going after pipelines is just an assbackwards way of going about it. Invent technologies that make oil and gas obsolete if that is your true goal. Of course that is much harder to do than standing in front of a pipeline construction site and screaming your lungs out.

You can do both, you know.  I've invested what little I can into green-energy research, and also donated some supplies to the Standing Rock community during the midst of the assault on their reservation in late 2016.

Thank you for acknowledging reality. Unfortunately, we don't have the technologies present today to immediately transition 100% to renewable energy. Thus, in the meantime our real choice is whether we want to produce oil and gas here in North America, or get it from dictatorships and terrorist sympathizers. Oil will continue to be used by Americans in the short term whether or not we build more pipelines. Stopping pipeline construction does nothing to advance your goal.

[MaxQue]

You posted this picture in response to a factual statement by True Federalist. If you disagree with his assertion that pipelines are the most ecologically sound way to move oil, prove it. This picture is certainly not proof. Train crashes happen. Truck accidents definitely happen. Pipelines are the best way to move oil and gas. If oil and gas is extracted from the earth, we need pipelines to move it.

I don't care what the "most ecologically sound" method of moving oil is, frankly.  As UncleSam aptly put it earlier in this thread, oil pipelines being the safest method of transport is the same as saying that hypodermic needles are the safest way to take heroin.

But moreover, imagine casually defending the relative safety of pipelines in a thread dedicated to discussing a specific pipeline that has already spilled hundreds of thousands of gallons of oil into the ecosystem.

Of course, the real goal is to stop oil and gas production

Agreed.

and going after pipelines is just an assbackwards way of going about it. Invent technologies that make oil and gas obsolete if that is your true goal. Of course that is much harder to do than standing in front of a pipeline construction site and screaming your lungs out.

You can do both, you know.  I've invested what little I can into green-energy research, and also donated some supplies to the Standing Rock community during the midst of the assault on their reservation in late 2016.

Thank you for acknowledging reality. Unfortunately, we don't have the technologies present today to immediately transition 100% to renewable energy. Thus, in the meantime our real choice is whether we want to produce oil and gas here in North America, or get it from dictatorships and terrorist sympathizers. Oil will continue to be used by Americans in the short term whether or not we build more pipelines. Stopping pipeline construction does nothing to advance your goal.

The thing is, you barely get any more dictatorships anymore. USA is on the verge of producing enough for itself and USA+Canada is already producing more than USA needs.

[Sbane]

It will be so good that America's President finally takes climate change seriously again, and he can lead the world rather than being left behind.

Can you explain how this helps with climate change? It just makes it more likely the oil at Cushing and other major terminals in Texas will be either domestic or from Venezuela/gulf states. It does not lower the amount of consumption of gasoline.

Sure. Domestic/Venezuelan/Gulf gas is way, way better for the environment than obscenely dirty tar sands oil. Everybody knows we're going to use oil in the 2020s, but we can at least not use tar sands oil. It's like the difference between anthracite and lignite coal. If we must use coal, using the former exclusively would least be less bad.

And this is a reasonable argument for stopping this specific pipeline. Also, this particular pipeline isn't even that important now in any case. I am more concerned that this will become a pattern of behavior where environmentalists protest every single pipeline being built.

Also, as someone who lives in an area with lots of oil and gas production, let me just tell you that production doesn't stop when there aren't enough pipelines. Rather it starts getting transported by more dangerous means such as road or rail.

[Sbane]

Also, the independence from the Saudi argument doesn't work anymore, USA produces like 95% of its use already.

Well, even if you count Canada as part of American oil that's not entirely true as quite a bit of oil flows into the US and then goes out as finished product.   But, yes the Keystone XL was important to Albertan oil interests but not so much to the US. 

And this is a great point as well. This is good politics by Biden as he gets to fulfill a leftist dream on day one (so the rest of us forget by election time) and hurt very few Americans by doing it.

[Sbane]

You posted this picture in response to a factual statement by True Federalist. If you disagree with his assertion that pipelines are the most ecologically sound way to move oil, prove it. This picture is certainly not proof. Train crashes happen. Truck accidents definitely happen. Pipelines are the best way to move oil and gas. If oil and gas is extracted from the earth, we need pipelines to move it.

I don't care what the "most ecologically sound" method of moving oil is, frankly.  As UncleSam aptly put it earlier in this thread, oil pipelines being the safest method of transport is the same as saying that hypodermic needles are the safest way to take heroin.

But moreover, imagine casually defending the relative safety of pipelines in a thread dedicated to discussing a specific pipeline that has already spilled hundreds of thousands of gallons of oil into the ecosystem.

Of course, the real goal is to stop oil and gas production

Agreed.

and going after pipelines is just an assbackwards way of going about it. Invent technologies that make oil and gas obsolete if that is your true goal. Of course that is much harder to do than standing in front of a pipeline construction site and screaming your lungs out.

You can do both, you know.  I've invested what little I can into green-energy research, and also donated some supplies to the Standing Rock community during the midst of the assault on their reservation in late 2016.

Thank you for acknowledging reality. Unfortunately, we don't have the technologies present today to immediately transition 100% to renewable energy. Thus, in the meantime our real choice is whether we want to produce oil and gas here in North America, or get it from dictatorships and terrorist sympathizers. Oil will continue to be used by Americans in the short term whether or not we build more pipelines. Stopping pipeline construction does nothing to advance your goal.

The thing is, you barely get any more dictatorships anymore. USA is on the verge of producing enough for itself and USA+Canada is already producing more than USA needs.

Yes, I know that, but the market for oil is global. The more that is produced by North America, the less money that goes to Venezuela, Russia and the Gulf. We should export oil to other countries if we can produce more than what we need.

[Alben Barkley]

Joe owes Native Americans his victory in Arizona and possibly Wisconsin. They were one of the few minority groups that swung sharply towards him and really turned out for him. So good to see this.

[MaxQue]

You posted this picture in response to a factual statement by True Federalist. If you disagree with his assertion that pipelines are the most ecologically sound way to move oil, prove it. This picture is certainly not proof. Train crashes happen. Truck accidents definitely happen. Pipelines are the best way to move oil and gas. If oil and gas is extracted from the earth, we need pipelines to move it.

I don't care what the "most ecologically sound" method of moving oil is, frankly.  As UncleSam aptly put it earlier in this thread, oil pipelines being the safest method of transport is the same as saying that hypodermic needles are the safest way to take heroin.

But moreover, imagine casually defending the relative safety of pipelines in a thread dedicated to discussing a specific pipeline that has already spilled hundreds of thousands of gallons of oil into the ecosystem.

Of course, the real goal is to stop oil and gas production

Agreed.

and going after pipelines is just an assbackwards way of going about it. Invent technologies that make oil and gas obsolete if that is your true goal. Of course that is much harder to do than standing in front of a pipeline construction site and screaming your lungs out.

You can do both, you know.  I've invested what little I can into green-energy research, and also donated some supplies to the Standing Rock community during the midst of the assault on their reservation in late 2016.

Thank you for acknowledging reality. Unfortunately, we don't have the technologies present today to immediately transition 100% to renewable energy. Thus, in the meantime our real choice is whether we want to produce oil and gas here in North America, or get it from dictatorships and terrorist sympathizers. Oil will continue to be used by Americans in the short term whether or not we build more pipelines. Stopping pipeline construction does nothing to advance your goal.

The thing is, you barely get any more dictatorships anymore. USA is on the verge of producing enough for itself and USA+Canada is already producing more than USA needs.

Yes, I know that, but the market for oil is global. The more that is produced by North America, the less money that goes to Venezuela, Russia and the Gulf. We should export oil to other countries if we can produce more than what we need.

Very expensive and polluting tar sands and expensive shale gas aren't competitive on a global scale. You try to compete with them, they'll crank up the production so the oil barrel falls to a price where shale is more expensive to extract than its worth.

[Hermit For Peace]

Good riddance. While I don't like the fact that people are being put out of work, those jobs were temporary anyway. Hopefully they will be provided for somehow, maybe have them build green renewable energy systems and other sustainable businesses where we don't have to keep raping the land.

Leave the people who live on the land, alone. Give them peace.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

This is one of the dirtiest sources of oil on the planet and a project that's funded by American and Canadian taxpayers and utility customers, glad Biden is killing this garbage.

Exactly how are American taxpayers funding this? I know Canadian ones are because of the stupidity of Alberta's premier, but I am not aware of any Keystone specific funding by American governments.

 The American government has been funding this pipeline through American Banks and American public utility customers got price increases because of the pipeline, for infrastructure "improvements".

"Utility customers" is not the same as "taxpayers"

 Who said they were? I clearly said both. Also try to understand how banking works. If The United States lends big banks money for near nothing to fund infrastructure projects that will also receive subsidies and tax breaks, that means the US taxpayer is also paying for this pipeline.

And I clearly focused on the taxpayers portion of your comment. Yet your response had nothing to do with them, but about the utility customers. Also, it's rather ridiculous to criticize something of general application as a handout to a specific project.If you want to be against all infrastructure, say so.

[Co-Chair Bagel23]

https://twitter.com/davidakin/status/1352455967259111424

lol obviously not literally

[Santander]

https://twitter.com/davidakin/status/1352455967259111424
lol obviously not literally

Theoretically, if Alberta was annexed by the US, there wouldn't be a need for federal government approval?

[Antonio the Sixth]

lmao, if Lil' Biebertrudeau wants to pick a fight, he's welcome to try. Uncle Joe will give him the good spanking he deserves.

[Co-Chair Bagel23]

lmao, if Lil' Biebertrudeau wants to pick a fight, he's welcome to try. Uncle Joe will give him the good spanking he deserves.

Daddy.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

lmao, if Lil' Biebertrudeau wants to pick a fight, he's welcome to try. Uncle Joe will give him the good spanking he deserves.

Oh my...

[PSOL]

Native Americans will swing heavily toward the Democratic Party in 2024, and for good reason too.

They already vote D almost as much as African-Americans do.

Those in the Dakotas do anyway.   And those in AK or OK are not swinging D due to this.

I cannot speak for Oklahoma, but Alaskan natives have massively swung to the Democratic Party according to regional data. Must be because Joe cancels those pipelines poisoning the water, no?

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Unfortunately, for D's, this is another reason why Manchin won't sign onto Filibuster reform due to fact he didn't like Biden decision to block the Keystone pipeline