Despite Keystone controversy, analysts give TransCanada a thumbs-up

Sep 11, 2011 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: The Globe and Mail

The Calgary-based pipeline and power company's huge Keystone XL oil pipeline project, which would build a 2,700-kilometre link between the Alberta oil sands and the refining hub of Port Arthur, Tex., has been the focus of celebrity-spangled protests that have escalated since the U.S. State Department released a positive final environmental ... (more)

Comments
1 - 5 of 5 Comments Last updated Nov 18, 2011
Colt Ledger

Irvine, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Sep 11, 2011
 

Judged:

1

1

1

We think your doing a great job with the oil and gas industry, keep it up!! Anyone interested in getting some money back from investment deals gone bad, contact me at coltledger at Att.net

Since: Jul 07

Newport News, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Nov 15, 2011
 

Judged:

2

1

1

"By preventing the oil flow from Canada, the United States will thus deliberately deprive itself of new manufacturing and construction jobs; it will not slow down the increase of global CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion (OK, by two weeks, perhaps); it will almost certainly empower China; and it will make itself strategically even more vulnerable by becoming further dependent on declining, unstable, and contested overseas crude oil supplies. That is what is called a spherically perfect decision, because no matter from which angle you look at it, it looks perfectly the same: wrong."

Vaclav Smil, energy analyst
paul shykora arts

Calgary, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Nov 15, 2011
 
....romantic Alberta will flow down the OIL and Gas,into LONG,Texas...eh....$$$
Matt at shaleoilresouce

Denver, CO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Nov 16, 2011
 

Judged:

1

1

The State Department/Obama Adminstration announced another delay in making a decision on whether to allow TransCanada to build a new pipeline across our border. The pipeline would transport between 500,000 and 1,300,000 barrels per day of “friendly” Canadian crude to the oil hub in Cushing, OK as well as to the Gulf Coast through the Cushing Extension. However, it looks like it is back to the drawing board.

The Obama administration is asking for the evaluation of another route which does not cross “ecologically sensitive areas” in Nebraska. What exactly does that mean? Isn’t that offensive to the people’s land who the pipeline will eventually cross? There are hundreds of miles of pipeline across the Oglala Aquifer and they have existed together for years without a major incident. If you look back in the editorial history in Nebraska, it didn’t seem like real local protest against this pipeline happened until during/after the BP spill in the gulf. My prediction was these editorials would delay the pipeline in 2010 and everyone laughed at me. Well folks, here we are almost two years later and now it looks like a decision will be pushed back till after the next election.

Why is the timing important? Mr. Obama has Union support, and Green support. Unfortunately for him, this pipeline has these two groups at odds with each other. If the pipeline is built, thousands of union jobs will be created but the green crowd will be upset with the continued dependence on crude oil instead of clean energy. If the pipeline is not built, the green crowd will be happy but the unions will be upset about losing jobs. So the question is, what is the win-win situation for Mr. Obama? Delay the pipeline so he doesn’t upset either and let the next president make the decision.

In the meantime, Canada will build a pipeline west to transport their friendly crude to China and our gasoline and diesel prices will probably continue to rise and we will be at the mercy of several countries who hate the United States. Also, several other folks who were wishing to get the second and third tier support jobs will be out of luck.

article provided by:
www.thebakken.net
www.shaleoilresource.com

Since: Nov 11

Spearfish, SD

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Nov 18, 2011
 
Matt,

I'm curious. This isn't big union country. What union jobs would be created by this pipeline going through?

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Other Recent TransCanada Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Usa Today poll: Slight majority backs Keystone ... (Jan '14) May '14 Mary 2
Nebraska ruling could grant Obama breathing spa... (Feb '14) Feb '14 El oh El 22
Keystone XL vs Lethal Lone Star Threat (Feb '14) Feb '14 Robert Burns 1
TransCanada shuts down pipeline after early mor... (Jan '14) Jan '14 Otterburne 1
Keystone XL's deepening fight spurs move to oil... (Jan '14) Jan '14 SHYKORA PAUL arts 2
NAFTA environmental body asks Ottawa to respond... (Dec '13) Dec '13 Sam 1
McGuinty could have cancelled gas plant with no... (Oct '13) Oct '13 how did this happen 1

Search the TransCanada Forum:
•••