Northern Gateway, Good For Canada, Bad For OPEC

[The Langley Ladyboy]

Provides revenue for communities along the right-of-way

Estimated $1.2billion in tax revenue for British Columbia over a 30 yr. period

Aboriginal communities along the right-of-way will be offered a 10 per cent share of equity, providing a revenue stream that would improve education, access to health care and housing

Creates a steady market for local providers of goods and services

Opens up access to new foreign markets

Creation of 3,000 jobs for British Columbians during the three-year construction period and over 500 jobs in the long term.

Increased prosperity for British Columbia and Canada

[The Langley Ladyboy]

Thankfully that brilliant and sexy poster Shen Li opened my eyes which had been closed by OPEC money and propaganda. Fuck, is Shen Li ever fucking smart.

[Phagdish Hardy]

Thankfully that brilliant and sexy poster Shen Li opened my eyes which had been closed by OPEC money and propaganda. Fuck, is Shen Li ever fucking smart.

She sure as fuck is smart. To think, I actually thought rig hands in Calgary not only owned property in the Okanagan, they ould lose it and drive down property prices there.

[Anonymous]

Provides revenue for communities along the right-of-way

Estimated $1.2billion in tax revenue for British Columbia over a 30 yr. period

Aboriginal communities along the right-of-way will be offered a 10 per cent share of equity, providing a revenue stream that would improve education, access to health care and housing

Creates a steady market for local providers of goods and services

Opens up access to new foreign markets

Creation of 3,000 jobs for British Columbians during the three-year construction period and over 500 jobs in the long term.

Increased prosperity for British Columbia and Canada

Oh Shen Li, I hope you stop this childish nonsense after we are in our new home.

 ac_rollseyes

[Anonymous]

Provides revenue for communities along the right-of-way

Estimated $1.2billion in tax revenue for British Columbia over a 30 yr. period

Aboriginal communities along the right-of-way will be offered a 10 per cent share of equity, providing a revenue stream that would improve education, access to health care and housing

Creates a steady market for local providers of goods and services

Opens up access to new foreign markets

Creation of 3,000 jobs for British Columbians during the three-year construction period and over 500 jobs in the long term.

Increased prosperity for British Columbia and Canada

Oh Shen Li, I hope you stop this childish nonsense after we are in our new home.

 ac_rollseyes

It's done. I had my fun, but it's over.

[The Langley Ladyboy]

I want Asians buying our superior cleaner oil not that crappy OPEC shit.

As Peter Burn, a former senior adviser to the Greenhouse Gas Reductions Directorate of Environment Canada, wrote in ipolitics.ca in July, 2014: "The 'dirtiest oil in North America' is not produced in Canada, but just outside Los Angeles, where the Placerita oil field generates about twice the level of upstream (greenhouse gas) emissions as Canada's oil sands production."



In all, there are 13 oil fields in California, plus crude oil from Alaska's North Slope, plus oil from at least six other countries -- including Nigeria, where one of its crude blends qualifies as "the world's dirtiest oil" -- that generate emissions up to four times that of oil from Canada's oil sands.



Markham Hislop, who writes on energy issues in Alberta and B.C. and is publisher of the Beacon Energy News, compared the carbon intensities (the amount of carbon by weight emitted, per unit of energy consumed) of seven California crudes and Alberta oilsands crudes in December, 2014, based on data from the California Clean Air Board.



The four California crudes all had significantly higher carbon intensities than the three Canadian ones.



Then again, Obama has repeatedly demonstrated in blocking Keystone that he simply makes his excuses up as he goes along.



First, he said he wouldn't approve Keystone if it significantly increased global greenhouse gas emissions.



That lasted until his own State Department told him twice, after exhaustive reviews, that not approving Keystone would actually increase emissions by up to 42%, given that alternative transportation methods such as rail would then be used to get oilsands bitumen to American refineries on the Gulf Coast.



(Obama's lap-dog Environmental Protection Agency has since provided him with a two-and-a-half page counter opinion, the length of a high-school essay, that says if oil prices stay depleted permanently, which has never happened, emissions could eventually increase because of Keystone, compared to other forms of transportation.)



Obama has also claimed Keystone will not economically benefit the United States, that the pipeline will simply pass through the U.S. on its way to shipping Canadian oil to foreign markets.



The reality, as the Washington Post and Wall Street Journal among others have noted, is that Keystone will benefit oil producers in North Dakota and Montana by getting their oil to the Gulf Coast, as well as American companies operating in Canada's oilsands, where they control about 30% of production.



Finally, they note, up to 70% of all oil transported by Keystone will be used in the U.S.



The real reason for Obama's vetoing of Keystone is simple.



It's his "green herring" -- as Burn dubbed it in his ipolitics.ca piece.



Obama has used his lies about Keystone to burnish his so-called credentials as an environmentally minded president with his Democratic base, when the reality is under his presidency U.S. coal exports -- the dirtiest fossil fuel -- are at record levels and the U.S. has become the world's largest producer of oil and natural gas.



It's also laid enough pipeline during his two terms in office to more than encircle the Earth.



Obama brags about this when he's in the work yard of U.S. pipeline companies, but never when he's among his equally hypocritical Hollywood pals, who have carbon footprints that could choke an elephant, while lecturing everyone else to make do with less.



The scary thing is Obama doesn't have to lie.



Because it crosses the U.S. border, the decision on whether to approve Keystone is his alone.



All he's ever had to say is he doesn't think it's in the best interests of the United States, however illogical that might be.



What's frightening is that if Obama lies like this when he doesn't have to, what else is he lying about?

http://www.torontosun.com/2015/03/11/ke">http://www.torontosun.com/2015/03/11/ke ... en-herring

[RDL]

Provides revenue for communities along the right-of-way

Estimated $1.2billion in tax revenue for British Columbia over a 30 yr. period

Aboriginal communities along the right-of-way will be offered a 10 per cent share of equity, providing a revenue stream that would improve education, access to health care and housing

Creates a steady market for local providers of goods and services

Opens up access to new foreign markets

Creation of 3,000 jobs for British Columbians during the three-year construction period and over 500 jobs in the long term.

Increased prosperity for British Columbia and Canada

Of course, the greedy Aboriginals are going to want 100% or they're not gonna let it happen.

[The Langley Ladyboy]

Provides revenue for communities along the right-of-way

Estimated $1.2billion in tax revenue for British Columbia over a 30 yr. period

Aboriginal communities along the right-of-way will be offered a 10 per cent share of equity, providing a revenue stream that would improve education, access to health care and housing

Creates a steady market for local providers of goods and services

Opens up access to new foreign markets

Creation of 3,000 jobs for British Columbians during the three-year construction period and over 500 jobs in the long term.

Increased prosperity for British Columbia and Canada

Of course, the greedy Aboriginals are going to want 100% or they're not gonna let it happen.

You're partly right, Aboriginal chiefs are greedy, corrupt scumbags who CAN be bought. ac_dance

[The Langley Ladyboy]

They can't use the climate change argument either. Canadian oil....cleaner and the most socially responsible, sustainable source of crude on the planet. ac_king

As an energy advisor to some of the world's most developed economies, Fatih Birol worries about critical issues including security of energy and the impact of fossil fuels on the climate. One issue he does not spend any time worrying about, however, is carbon emissions from the oil sands.



"There is a lot of discussion on oil sands projects in Canada and the United States and other parts of the world, but to be frank, the additional CO2 emissions coming from the oil sands is extremely low," Mr. Birol, chief economist at the International Energy Agency and one of the world's foremost energy economists, said in an interview.



As such, Mr. Birol argues that climate change issues should not serve as barriers to stunt the growth of oil sands projects.



The Paris-based agency, created 40 years ago by developed countries to counter the rising power of OPEC oil producers, advises its 28-member countries including Canada, the United States and Germany on energy security, environmental protection and economic development. The IEA's annual World Energy Outlook report for global energy demand and supply is widely considered the industry's global benchmark.



The IEA forecasts that in the next 25 years oil sands production in Canada will increase by more than three million barrels per day, "but the emissions of this additional production is equal to only 23 hours of emissions of China — not even one day," Mr. Birol said in a phone interview from Ottawa.



The economist does not believe that a carbon tax is the only way forward, noting that different countries have taken a different approach to managing carbon emissions, with some countries focusing on energy efficiencies.



"In some areas, climate change issues are [tackled] through energy policies, renewable policies, carbon capture or nuclear energy options."



The IEA believes that the world's energy supply will be almost-equally divided between oil, gas, coal and alternative resources by 2040.



The challenge between reining in environmental impacts and fuelling the global economy will continue to play out over the next few decades. Despite the best efforts of developed countries to reduce their carbon footprint, the emerging economies of the world are offsetting the decline. For each barrel of oil eliminated from consumption in OECD countries, two additional barrels of oil are expected to be consumed in the developing world, the IEA estimates.



As such the world will be looking to a diverse set of oil suppliers to quench its thirst for crude. While the U.S. tight oil production will lead the North American charge over the next decade, Canadian oil sands is set to emerge "as the engine of North American supply," according to the latest World Energy Outlook published this month.



Indeed, Canadian and Brazilian production will be the two major non-OPEC countries expanding production beyond 2020s, while Russian, Chinese, U.S. and Kazkahstani production declines. U.S. production will likely fall to 10 million barrels per day by 2040, from 10.3 million bpd last year, as the country exhausts its shale reserves.



Meanwhile, Canadian total oil production is expected to rise 2.3% annually to reach 7.4 million bpd by 2040 from four million today. The oil sands will be among the fastest-growing unconventional in the world, growing 3.7% annually during the period.



Flagship Canadian pipelines projects proposed to the east, west and south are facing a mix of regulatory and environmental hurdles, but Mr. Birol believes the economics of oil are so lucrative "that I believe sooner or later there will be solutions to transportation problems."



However, in its most recent report the IEA warned that expanding Canadian production depends on new transportation capacity "which is proving far from straightforward."



The pipeline delays are casting doubt over free-market oil production at a time of rising global energy security, an area Mr. Birol believes will be foremost on the minds of global policymakers in the next few years.



"Canada, in terms of being a reliable supplier, providing diversification and being a triple-A market economy, can play a very positive role in terms of global energy security for Europe and for the rest of the world."



Canadian production may gain even more importance as the Middle East, which the IEA widely expects to deliver the largest increases in production over the next three decades, is plunged in a series of wars and conflicts. Some of the most geologically promising jurisdictions of Iraq, Iran and Libya, for example, are facing existential threats, while others like Algeria and Venezuela face crippling political paralysis.



"The apparent breathing space provided by the rise in non-OPEC output over the next decade is in many respects illusory, given the long-lead times of new upstream projects."



In many respects the current plunge in crude oil prices distracts from long-term investments needed to keep up with global energy demand expected to grow at 0.9% annually till at least 2040.



"I think the oil sands projects are more to resistant to other high-cost jurisdictions such as American light, tight oil, Brazilian offshore oil projects or the Arctic," Mr. Birol said in the interview this week, before OPEC's decision to maintain oil production sent U.S. crude oil prices below US$70 for the first time in four years. "If the prices go down further they would put downward pressure on new investments but Canadian oil sands are one of the most resistant ones compared to others."

http://business.financialpost.com/news/energy/new-emissions-from-canadas-oil-sands-extremely-low-says-ieas-chief-economist?__lsa=b3d8-9537">http://business.financialpost.com/news/ ... =b3d8-9537">http://business.financialpost.com/news/energy/new-emissions-from-canadas-oil-sands-extremely-low-says-ieas-chief-economist?__lsa=b3d8-9537

[Phagdish Hardy]

^This is why I would never support the NDP(No Development Party).

[Anonymous]

^This is why I would never support the NDP(No Development Party).

 ac_rollseyes