SenateEnergyCommitteeclearspro-KeystoneXLmeasure,with

Senate Energy Committee clears pro-Keystone XL measure, with Mary Landrieu pointedly leading the charge

posted at 4:41 pm on June 19, 2014 by Erika Johnsen

• Share on Facebook 1
• 1 SHARES

In the face of the relentless dillydallying on the part of the Obama administration on the Keystone XL pipeline, Canada went ahead and starting exploring the potential of cutting deals with other markets in Asia — and yesterday, the Canadian government approved their own Northern Gateway pipeline to carry crude from the Alberta oil sands out to the Pacific Ocean for shipment via tankers. There has been some speculation about the possibility of the Obama administration approving the Keystone XL pipeline now that Iraq’s oil output is on seriously unstable footing (although, reality check: The Keystone XL pipeline by itself wouldn’t have enough of an impact on the global oil market to directly mitigate any future disruptions from the Middle East), but I have the gravest doubts that the Obama administration is going to say anything more about the pipeline until after the elections, come what may.

Regardless, Democrat Mary Landrieu has no intention of backing off of her campaign to use the pipeline’s elevated name recognition to differentiate herself from President Obama and tout her ostensible clout as head of the Senate Energy Committee to her energy-lovin’, red-state constituents. Via Time:

Mary Landrieu chairs the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, a perch that offered the vulnerable Louisiana Democrat an opportunity Wednesday to mix policy and politics.

With President Barack Obama delaying a decision on the Keystone XL pipeline and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid reluctant to schedule a floor vote on a bill that would subvert Obama’s authority, Landrieu pushed through a committee vote on the controversial pipeline. It passed, 12-10, with Landrieu joining Republicans to vote in favor of the project.

The move could be a political boon for Landrieu, a moderate Democrat locked in a difficult fight to win reelection in the conservative Bayou State. One recent poll found that 67% of Louisiana voters favored construction of the pipeline, with just 12% opposing the project. Nearly four in five respondents cited Keystone as an important issue in the race.

And with Landrieu’s main Republican challenger Bill Cassidy up by three points in RCP’s polling average, I suppose it is a worthwhile political endeavor. As practical endeavor, however — not so much, as Republicans pulling for the Senate majority are wont to point out. Via National Journal:

“I do question the purpose of today’s vote,” said Sen. John Barrasso, who heads the Senate Republican Policy Committee, ahead of the vote in the committee that Landrieu chairs. “With all due respect this vote seems more like a cheerleading exercise than a meaningful effort to get Keystone built.”

“The obstacle of getting Keystone built is Senator Reid and members of the Senate who continue to elect him majority leader,” Barrasso said. …

But Landrieu fired back at the Wyoming Republican before the vote, challenging the idea that she’s merely staging a piece of political theater.

“There was no popcorn and Coca-Cola handed out today in this meeting, and there were no tickets sold to get in here,” Landrieu said, addressing Barrasso directly. “This is the United States Senate.”

But as far as Harry Reid actually allowing a vote on the measure before the midterms? Fuhgeddaboudit, unless somehow some major political calculus changes before November.

• Share on Facebook 1
• 1 SHARES

Tags: Canada, Democrats, energy, Keystone XL Pipeline, Louisiana, Mary Landrieu, Oil and Gas Industry

Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Canada just approved its own domestic version of the Keystone XL pipeline

Canadajustapproveditsowndomesticversionof

Europe:Sorrywerejectedyou,Canada;wereally

Europe: Sorry we rejected you, Canada; we really want your oil sands after all

posted at 4:41 pm on June 5, 2014 by Erika Johnsen

• Share on Facebook 1
• 1 SHARES

One of the reasons eco-radicals harbor such strong distaste for the Keystone XL pipeline is because they believe that Canada should quixotically eschew the economic opportunities in their oil sands and instead leave those natural resources in the ground. Their quest to kill the pipeline has therefore always been epically illogical, since Canada will and has found a way to get their oil to market, either to our Gulf refineries via rail transport or else by building their own domestic pipelines out to the coasts for shipment by sea.

These Keystone XL-hatin’ eco-radicals almost had a helpful partner in the European Union, which — heeding the complaint that oil sands are somewhat more carbon-intensive than conventional crude — was all ready with legislation meant to encourage the use of cleaner transport fuels by slapping heavy and deliberately discriminatory penalties on imports of Canada’s oil sands. Canada was all ready to get to work and trade with Asian countries anyway, but all the better if they can open up the European market, too — and Europe’s newfound skittishness about energy security and eagerness to reduce dependence on Russia has the bloc looking to diversify its supplies.

I mentioned last month that the EU was rethinking its high-minded pooh-poohing of the oil sands, and it looks like Canada may actually get its wish in the form of a major reversal on those forthcoming EU regulations that will instead allow Canada’s oil sands to do steady business there, via the Financial Times:

Canada today exports little crude to Europe, but it has plans to increase those exports if new pipelines are built linking the oil sands to ports, such as TransCanada’s proposed Energy East project to take oil from Alberta to the east coast. …

Chris Davies, a European parliamentarian on the environment committee, said that Connie Hedegaard, the EU climate commissioner, had lost out to stronger voices in the commission with industrial and trade portfolios. “She got beat,” Mr Davies said. …

The latest draft of the EU legislation is a reversal from earlier versions of the plan, which would have required fuel suppliers to disclose the carbon footprint of the original crude oil that was used to make their products, and stay below maximum limits for associated emissions. …

Under the new methodology, companies will only have to make their emission cuts based on EU averages for the “output” fuels – the petrol or diesel – regardless of whether it was originally made from heavy crude or not.

• Share on Facebook 1
• 1 SHARES

Tags: Canada, energy, Europe, natural gas, oil, pipeline, Russia

Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Europe:Youknow,maybewewerealittle

Europe: You know, maybe we were a little hasty about pooh-poohing Canada’s oil sands…

posted at 1:21 pm on May 9, 2014 by Erika Johnsen

The Keystone XL pipeline proposal is just as politically charged as ever, but practically speaking, the project is getting less and less relevant by the day. Canada would still very much like to get the pipeline started if they can, since terrestrial pipelines are the safest, cleanest, most cost-effective way to get the job of shipping done, but as everyone who doesn’t have their head determinedly stuck in the [oil] sand has already acknowledged, that oil is going to find its way to market one way or another — and if it’s not via pipeline or railroad to our refineries in the Gulf, then Canada will build out their own pipelines and railroads to the coasts for shipment by sea.

Canada has generally been thinking about Asia as the prime foreign market to buy up their oil sands, but the last few months of Russian aggression on the continent have started to affect Europeans’ previously high-minded feelings on the matter. Their overly expensive and failed green schemes combined with decreasing stability from their traditional energy partner has them feeling a bit more humble about the oil sands whose advances they once rejected, via the Financial Post:

As Europe reels from Moscow’s belligerence and utter dependence on its oil and gas supplies, the Harper government is positioning itself as a reliable partner ready to offer energy security to the continent.

Eager to diversify their energy resources, European countries are also warming up to Ottawa and softening their tough stance on the oil sands as they look to reduce their dependence on Russia’s oil and gas supplies.

The European Union has previously deemed the oil sands as one of the dirtiest forms of oil and its proposed Fuel Quality Fuel Directive would effectively make Canadian crude unwelcome in European refineries. But Russia’s latest aggressive moves in Ukraine have compelled the continent to take another look at Alberta crude.

“I feel better about it now than perhaps we have at any point in time,” Mr. Rickford said. “It was a very positive signal from the G7 energy ministers I met with. My discussion with European Union Council Representatives again [gave] a strong signal that this was moving in the right direction for Canada.”

Canada’s plans to build liquefied natural gas projects and crude oil pipelines from west to east was received with “enthusiasm” by his G7 counterparts, he added.

Whatever they ultimately decide to do, it would take a few years for both Canada and Europe to build the requisite infrastructure for shipping and receiving any petroleum products — but it sounds like Europe’s baronial green ideals are finding reality a little more difficult to contend with than they’d like.

Tags: Canada, energy, Europe, Keystone XL Pipeline, Oil and Gas Industry, Russia, Vladimir Putin

Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Bloomberg:CanadaPMStephenHarperprettyfedup

Bloomberg: Canada PM Stephen Harper pretty fed up with America’s frustrater-in-chief

posted at 2:41 pm on April 25, 2014 by Erika Johnsen

I’m going to go ahead and add their ongoing insouciance toward Canada on the Keystone XL pipeline to the Obama administration’s already impressively long list of foreign-policy blunders and undervaluations; sure, administration officials will readily affirm that Canada is “one of our closest partners” and “greatest friends” and whatever else, but just saying the words isn’t quite the same thing as actually helping a brother out on strengthening their economy and building up their natural resource production. Canada is our largest commercial trading partner and the country from which we import the most oil by far (followed by Saudi Arabia, Mexico, and Venezuela, ahem), but bully for them if they want to add a simple pipeline to the several million miles of pipeline already crisscrossing our country — and there’s really nothing they can do about it.

Bloomberg has a big rundown out today of the now five-year history of the Obama administration’s political gamesmanship on the proposed pipeline, and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s extreme weariness of it:

That the U.S. couldn’t be counted on to take Canada’s oil came as a shocking epiphany, said a former senior government adviser with knowledge of the call who asked not to be identified because the person isn’t authorized to speak publicly.

The president’s call that day jolted the Canadians awake. It convinced Harper that Obama was treating a long-presumed “special relationship” between Canada and the U.S., enshrined in the 1989 Free Trade Agreement, as a political football. …

Today, Harper’s pessimism over that 2011 call seems justified. On April 18, as Christians marked the Good Friday holiday, the Obama administration notified the Canadians that the pipeline would be held up one more time over unresolved legal issues involving the Nebraska route. …

Harper, in a Jan. 14 interview with Bloomberg News, characterized his relationship with Obama as “good” while noting that “there are times when we do have to stand up in a way that’s not necessarily the same view as the American administration.” …

In the January Bloomberg interview, Harper criticized Obama for kicking the can down the road. Asked what he had learned from Keystone about dealing with the president, he replied: “I don’t think I’ve learned anything I didn’t know already. I’ll just leave it there. Look I’m not telling any tales out of school that the reason for the holdup is politics, and it is politics of a fairly narrow nature.”

And now, Canada is destined to wait at least through the year in total uncertainty. I’m sure they’re over the moon about it.

Tags: Barack Obama, Canada, energy, foreign policy, foreign relations, Keystone XL Pipeline, Stephen Harper

Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

KeystoneXL’smidtermoutlook:Eco-aristocratsversuseverybodyelse

Keystone XL’s midterm outlook: Eco-aristocrats versus everybody else

posted at 3:21 pm on March 25, 2014 by Erika Johnsen

As I’ve said before, I’m starting to lean toward the theory that the Obama administration really will make a Keystone XL pipeline decision in the next few months (and the most opportune moment might actually be just before the midterms). A strategically announced green light and a pro-jobs message could provide a much-needed boost to some of the Senate’s most vulnerable Democrats in Alaska, Louisiana, Colorado, etcetera who don’t ascribe to the anti-fossil-fuelism that is all the rage among the party’s more progressive eco-radical contingent.

Making predictions about it at all stills feels borderline ridiculous, since the Obama administration will continue to do whatever the heck they want to without feeling at all constrained by the highly irregular five years they’ve been trampling all over Canada’s energy sector. The biggest trouble with that imminent-Keystone-approval theory is that some of the Democrats’ most high-profile, wealthy donors are self-fancied environmentalist aristocrats — i.e., out-of-touch millionaires — who are avidly anti-Keystone and who might not feel compelled to keep dropping dollars on the races in the energy-rich red-purple states where those donations will be needed most in the event of an approval. I like how Lloyd Green phrased the “green-gentry liberalism” situation at the Daily Beast:

Meanwhile, the Pew Research Center reported that the fight over the Keystone XL pipeline project was not a routine party-line battle between Democrats and Republicans, but a high-profile scrum pitting the Democrats’ donor class against the rest of America. According to Pew, the public actually favors Keystone by better than two-to-one, with opposition concentrated among graduate degree holding Democrats, and Democrats with household incomes north of $100,000. In contrast to high-end Democrats, working class Democrats support Keystone—regardless of race.

So where does this leave would-be populist Al Gore—who branded Keystone as an “atrocity,” —along with would-be Democratic financial savior and Keystone opponent Tom Steyer, and the Democratic Party itself? How about a world away from job-craving America, and light years from the mid-twentieth century Democratic Party.

Truth bomb. In the meantime, Canadian officials and energy executives are still putting a brave face on the situation, but not-so-subtly stressing that the way they’ve been treated is beyond egregious:

Contrary to what environmentalists have been claiming about killing Keystone XL as a viable way to push Canada into keeping more of their oil sands in the ground, the global demand incentivizing Canada to develop their oil sands has only kept right on growing, and be it by train, barge, or one of the about ten other proposed pipelines Canada is thinking about, some of which are already in the works, Canada is just as determined to get its oil to market. Via CNBC:

As the Keystone XL project has languished, pipeline companies have proposed a number of other projects to move oil out of Alberta, most of them entirely on Canadian soil.

TransCanada, the company that wants to build Keystone XL, recently took the first step in the approval process for a different pipeline, a massive project that would snake nearly 2,800 miles from Alberta to Eastern Canada. “Energy East” would transport a whopping 1.1 million barrels of crude a day to refineries in Quebec and terminals on the Atlantic coast.

The next largest project, Kinder Morgan’s proposed TransMountain pipeline, would carry about 890,000 barrels a day in the other direction to the coast of British Columbia.

Enbridge, another major Canadian pipeline company, has two projects in the works — the Northern Gateway, which would send 520,000 barrels a day to the coast of British Columbia, and its Line 3 replacement, which could move 760,000 barrels a day from Canada into Wisconsin. Because Line 3 would replace an existing cross-border pipeline, the company argues it would not need the presidential permit that has held up Keystone XL.

Tags: Canada, energy, infrastructure, Keystone XL Pipeline, pipeline

Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Shockpoll:AmericansoverwhelminglyfavorbuildingtheKeystone

Shock poll: Americans overwhelmingly favor building the Keystone XL pipeline

posted at 1:31 pm on March 7, 2014 by Erika Johnsen

Exactly how many iterations of this absurdly common-sense conclusion are we going to need before the Obama administration gets its rear in gear? From the Washington Post:

Americans support the idea of constructing the Keystone XL oil pipeline between Canada and the United States by a nearly 3 to 1 margin, with 65 percent saying it should be approved and 22 percent opposed, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

The findings also show that the public thinks the massive project, which aims to ship 830,000 barrels of oil a day from Alberta and the northern Great Plains to refineries on the Gulf Coast, will produce significant economic benefits. Eighty-five percent say the pipeline would create a significant number of jobs, with 62 percent saying they “strongly” believed that to be the case. …

That so many Americans back the pipeline, even with environmental risks, highlights the quandary facing President Obama and his top aides as they weigh whether to approve the proposal.

Ah, yes — an insulated from politics “quandary” if ever there was one. Let’s see: To heed the vast majority of Americans who can see past the smokescreen of eco-radical crapola and recognize that America needs to get moving on major energy infrastructure projects in order to take the best advantage of our recent shale boom, or to abide by the whims of a handful of out-of-touch, well-monied ultra-progressives and their borderline religious followers who have latched onto the Keystone XL pipeline as a symbol of all things fossil-fueled? Man, what a pickle.

Academy Award-winning actor Jared Leto and 13 other young activists, including the grandson of Robert F. Kennedy, are calling on Secretary of State John Kerry to reject the Keystone XL oil pipeline.

After speaking with top State Department officials on Thursday, the activists sent a letter to Kerry, digging deep into the secretary’s past when he testified in Congress against the Vietnam War.

“In 1971, when you were roughly our age, you asked ‘How can you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?’ ” the letter states. “We stand at such a point today, with respect to an even greater challenge, an even bigger mistake — the imminent threat of catastrophic climate disruption.”

“We dare to believe that it’s not just an accident of history that this recommendation falls to you,” the letter said.

…Melodrama? Maybe?

As the Washington Post-ABC poll points out, 47 percent of Americans are still concerned that Keystone XL poses a significant threat to the environment — and it’s not like there’s zero cause for that concern. Every choice we’re going to make in the energy sector requires tradeoffs, but on net evaluation with all of the other alternatives (including, as these so-called environmentalists would evidently have it, either just shutting all of the power off everywhere or spending ourselves into poverty for “renewable” energy sources), the Keystone XL pipeline is the most cost effective, efficient, ecologically safe, and economically rewarding choice we have available — and Americans know it.

Tags: Barack Obama, Canada, donors, energy, environmentalism, Keystone XL Pipeline, lobbyists

Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Environmentalistgroupcomesupwithareportthat

Environmentalist group comes up with a report that — surprise! — says Keystone XL will be way worse than the State Dept’s did

posted at 7:41 pm on March 4, 2014 by Erika Johnsen

These eco-radicals do not give up easily, I’ll give them that. The State Department’s environmental impact report released in January essentially concluded — as they have now done several times over — that the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline will have a negligible net impact on climate change, because Canada plans on developing their oil sands regardless and will ship them through alternate routes and methods even if Keystone XL never becomes a reality. The self-proclaimed green groups didn’t like that at all, which of course necessitates that they do their own report, via HuffPo:

The State Department’s final environmental impact analysis for the proposed Keystone XL pipeline downplays the significance the pipeline would have for development of the Canadian tar sands, according to a new analysis from a United Kingdom-based group. The analysis also argues that the State Department underestimated the amount of greenhouse gas emissions that would come with that development.

The Carbon Tracker Initiative, a nonprofit that focuses on how carbon budgets interact with financial markets, released the new report on Monday, making its case for why Keystone XL is more important in the context of global emissions than the State Department’s study indicates. …

Carbon Tracker says the government’s analysis “does not fully explore” how the lower transportation costs of pipeline transportation, when compared to rail transportation, would affect future oil sands production. The price of oil would have to be higher to make shipping by rail cost effective. Given the difference in price points at which the various methods of shipping become cost effective, oil companies could produce much as 525,000 more barrels of oil per day out of the tar sands if they have access to the Keystone XL pipeline.

“The price of oil would have to be higher to make shipping by rail cost effective.” …Man, you guys catch on fast. That the Keystone XL pipeline would be the most efficient, cost-effective, and not to mention ecologically sound method of transport is kind of the idea. Yes, the pipeline will indeed likely allow Canada to develop those oil-sands resources at a fast rate than they otherwise might, but those oil sands will get developed eventually, and without Keystone XL, Canada will likely build their own outward pipelines to ship their stuff to Asia — feats on which they’ve already gotten started. This is really just another eco-radical attempt at trying to persuade the world to act directly against its own economic interests and wean themselves off of fossil fuels — and they’re going to need to do a lot better than that if they want the world to stop building pipelines that enable fossil-fuel development.

In a letter to U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry as part of the National Interest Determination review of the Alberta-to-U.S.-Gulf project, Canada’s ambassador to the United States, Gary Doer, plays up Canada’s climate change record and promises more to come, including long-delayed action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in its oil industry and openness to act jointly with the U.S. on new regulation. …

Coincidentally, three other major oil pipelines are making leaps forward this week, demonstrating the denial of Keystone XL, as advocated by the environmental movement, won’t cap growth of Canada’s oil sands or give the president much to brag about on the climate front.

TransCanada Corp., proponent of KXL, said Tuesday it has taken the first step toward a regulatory filing for its Energy East pipeline from Alberta to the Canadian East Coast; Earlier, Enbridge Inc. said it plans to double the capacity of its Line 3 from Alberta to Wisconsin, which the company says doesn’t require a presidential permit because it’s a maintenance project. On Thursday, the National Energy Board will hand down a ruling on whether its Line 9 can be reversed and expanded to carry Alberta oil through Ontario and Quebec.

Tags: Canada, energy, environmentalism, Keystone XL Pipeline, Oil and Gas Industry

Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

ProgressivesnotquitereadytoletthatKeystone

Progressives not quite ready to let that Keystone XL “conflict of interest” thing go yet

posted at 2:41 pm on February 28, 2014 by Erika Johnsen

When the State Department’s inspector general announced earlier this week that the investigation into an allegedly undisclosed conflict-of-interest problem with the contractor they hired to conduct Keystone XL’s draft environmental impact report failed to bear any fruit, Rep. Raul Grijalva — the same Arizona Democratic representative who put together this ultra-sciencey anti-Keystone vid and who’s been taking some heat for neglecting his Congressional duties in favor of showy protests with his fellow eco-radicals — was most displeased. He penned this little ditty over at the New York Times (I’ll direct you to Charles Cooke at NRO for a thorough dressing-down on that front), and rather conveniently, just the day before, Sens. Barbara Boxer of California and Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island had begun a similar effort to leave no straw left ungrasped with a plea to Secretary Kerry to initiate a more health-centric impact study on the Keystone XL pipeline’s construction. Naturally, these hyper-progressives are now joining forces, via The Hill:

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) is joining Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.) in his call for the Government Accountability Office to investigate the State Department’s environmental review process for the Keystone XL oil pipeline.

Boxer made the request in a letter sent to the GAO on Friday, just days after Grijalva asked for a similar investigation.

“I am writing to join Congressman Grijalva in his request. The State Department must not just follow a process for selecting outside contractors,” Boxer’s letter states. “The process must be rigorous, thorough, and transparent, especially when the project in question could put communities from Alberta, Canada, down to the Gulf Coast at risk. The American people deserve to know that their interests — not special interests — are being protected by our federal agencies.”

The GAO will probably take a couple of weeks to make a final decision on whether to investigate the process, an oh-so-auspicious use of our tax dollars on which these lawmakers and a bunch of environmentalist groups are now insisting — but please, by all means, proceed. At the end of the day, the Keystone XL pipeline will still be in our national interest, because the fact of that matter is that the United States needs to start laying down a lot more pipeline infrastructure to take better advantage of our shale oil and gas boom, and no amount of wind and solar energy is going to be able to provide a viable substitute for fossil fuels for a long time coming.

Tags: Barbara Boxer, Canada, environmentalism, Keystone XL Pipeline, Oil and Gas Industry, progressives

Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Boxer,Whitehouse:YouknowwhatthisKeystoneXL

Boxer, Whitehouse: You know what this Keystone XL review really needs? A cancer study!

posted at 8:01 pm on February 26, 2014 by Erika Johnsen

Just this afternoon, the State Department’s inspector general basically cleared the department of allegations (stemming from the Sierra Club and other environmentalist groups, as well as the likes of Rep. Raul Grijalva) that it violated conflict-of-interest procedures when it hired a contractor with potential ties to TransCanada and the America Petroleum Institute to conduct the draft environmental impact report. Nope, not much there, says the IG, via Politico:

The IG launched its investigation after environmentalists alleged that the contractor, Environmental Resources Management, had failed to fully disclose its ties to the oil industry and other interests that would benefit if the Obama administration approves the Alberta-to-Texas oil pipeline.

Greens also contended that the department failed to vet the company closely enough before hiring it to work on a sweeping study of Keystone’s environmental impact.

But after reviewing documents and interviewing State Department officials, the inspector general’s office found that the department had followed its prescribed vetting process — “and at times was more rigorous than that guidance.”

The IG also “found that the process the Department used to assess organizational conflicts of interest was effective in that (i) a reasonable review was undertaken to independently evaluate ERM’s certification that it had no conflict of interest and (ii) the process achieved its intended result,” the report continued.

OK, sweet — that’s resolved, so we can all move forward now with this job- and wealth-creating piece of pipeline infrastructure, of which our shale boom is in current and desperate need, and on which there have now been multiple environmental impact reviews, and for which there is large bipartisan support, and by which we would really help out our northern neighbor from whom we obtain a plurality of our energy imports? Right?

I kid, of course.

A debate of more than five years could stretch even longer with Wednesday’s call for a health study on the proposed Keystone XL oil pipeline from Canada.

Two Democratic senators — Barbara Boxer of California and Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island — urged Secretary of State John Kerry to examine higher rates of cancer and other illness reported in places impacted by the “tar sands” oil from northern Alberta.

Their letter to Kerry sought to further delay the project that has support from Republicans, some Democrats, the oil industry and labor unions. A Pew Research Center poll in September showed 65% of respondents favored building it.

You can read more of her exact and asinine remarks here, but I just can’t, ya’ll. The lengths to which some of these progressives will go in their anti-intellectual crusade to forcibly wean us off of fossil fuels never ceases to amaze.

Tags: Barbara Boxer, bipartisanship, Canada, cancer, energy, environmentalism, Keystone XL Pipeline, Oil and Gas Industry, Sheldon Whitehouse

Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Railroads,regulatorsreachadealonnewsafety

Railroads, regulators reach a deal on new safety measures

posted at 5:31 pm on February 22, 2014 by Erika Johnsen

If it seems like you’ve been noticing an increasing number of news items about railroad derailments and accidents lately, it’s because you have; because of our own shale oil-and-gas boom combined with the development of Canada’s oil sands, minus the requisite shipping infrastructure to transport all of it, rail traffic has exploded as a means of shipping these energy products to the nation’s refineries.

Federal investigators say a freight train that crashed outside Pittsburgh last week and spilled thousands of gallons of crude oil was carrying heavy Canadian crude, marking the first U.S. rail spill of the controversial oil at the center of the Keystone pipeline debate.

A 120-car Norfolk Southern train derailed on a curve in Vandergrift, Pa., at 8 a.m. Feb. 13 and crashed into a building. Twenty-one cars left the track and spilled from 3,500 to 12,000 gallons of the tar-like crude. About 75 percent of the spill has been cleaned up, and none entered the local water supply. No injuries were reported.

The upswing in these costly, disruptive, dirty, and sometimes deadly accidents has everybody worried, and on Friday, federal regulators and the rail industry agreed to new voluntary measures aimed at making it safer to ship crude oil via rail tanker, including increased track inspections and lower speed limits in some urban areas. Via the WSJ:

The agreement comes a little more than a month after federal regulators and the rail and petroleum industries met to discuss enhancing safety measures after several recent accidents involving tank cars containing crude—including a fiery derailment in Quebec last July that killed 47 people.

“Safety is our top priority, and we have a shared responsibility to make sure crude oil is transported safely from origin to destination,” U.S. Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx said in a statement.

Federal regulators have been investigating a series of accidents involving exploding tank cars filled with crude from the Bakken oil fields. While crude oil is considered hazardous, it isn’t usually explosive. Derailments by trains—typically caused by track or equipment problems—have triggered the accidents.

Safety measures addressed at the meeting also included sharing information on the composition of crude from the Bakken shale, which the government has warned may be more explosive than other types of crude, as well as examining adding new safety features for tank cars that carry crude.

These new safety measures are a good development, but you know what’s an even safer way to transport all that oil? Terrestrial pipelines. Like, you know, the huge one Canada has been pushing to build for five years now, that the State Department has already concluded several times over would be the most efficient and environmental way to get the job done? What’s that one called again?

Tags: Canada, energy, infrastructure, Keystone XL Pipeline, Oil and Gas Industry, railroad

Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Railroads,regulatorsreachadealonnewsafety

Railroads, regulators reach a deal on new safety measures

posted at 5:31 pm on February 22, 2014 by Erika Johnsen

If it seems like you’ve been noticing an increasing number of news items about railroad derailments and accidents lately, it’s because you have; because of our own shale oil-and-gas boom combined with the development of Canada’s oil sands, minus the requisite shipping infrastructure to transport all of it, rail traffic has exploded as a means of shipping these energy products to the nation’s refineries.

Federal investigators say a freight train that crashed outside Pittsburgh last week and spilled thousands of gallons of crude oil was carrying heavy Canadian crude, marking the first U.S. rail spill of the controversial oil at the center of the Keystone pipeline debate.

A 120-car Norfolk Southern train derailed on a curve in Vandergrift, Pa., at 8 a.m. Feb. 13 and crashed into a building. Twenty-one cars left the track and spilled from 3,500 to 12,000 gallons of the tar-like crude. About 75 percent of the spill has been cleaned up, and none entered the local water supply. No injuries were reported.

The upswing in these costly, disruptive, dirty, and sometimes deadly accidents has everybody worried, and on Friday, federal regulators and the rail industry agreed to new voluntary measures aimed at making it safer to ship crude oil via rail tanker, including increased track inspections and lower speed limits in some urban areas. Via the WSJ:

The agreement comes a little more than a month after federal regulators and the rail and petroleum industries met to discuss enhancing safety measures after several recent accidents involving tank cars containing crude—including a fiery derailment in Quebec last July that killed 47 people.

“Safety is our top priority, and we have a shared responsibility to make sure crude oil is transported safely from origin to destination,” U.S. Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx said in a statement.

Federal regulators have been investigating a series of accidents involving exploding tank cars filled with crude from the Bakken oil fields. While crude oil is considered hazardous, it isn’t usually explosive. Derailments by trains—typically caused by track or equipment problems—have triggered the accidents.

Safety measures addressed at the meeting also included sharing information on the composition of crude from the Bakken shale, which the government has warned may be more explosive than other types of crude, as well as examining adding new safety features for tank cars that carry crude.

These new safety measures are a good development, but you know what’s an even safer way to transport all that oil? Terrestrial pipelines. Like, you know, the huge one Canada has been pushing to build for five years now, that the State Department has already concluded several times over would be the most efficient and environmental way to get the job done? What’s that one called again?

Tags: Canada, energy, infrastructure, Keystone XL Pipeline, Oil and Gas Industry, railroad

Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Openthread:U.S.vs.CanadainOlympichockey

Open thread: U.S. vs. Canada in Olympic hockey semifinal

posted at 11:21 am on February 21, 2014 by Allahpundit

Noon ET on NBC Sports, or you can watch the livestream online by logging in via your cable-provider username and password. For hockey fans, it’s a rematch of the scintillating 2010 gold-medal game between two evergreen powerhouses. For the other 97 percent of us, it’s a magical brew of nationalism and revenge for not one but two overtime heartbreaks. According to Gallup, 93 percent of Americans rate Canada favorably; if they beat the U.S. again, that number could sink to the high 80s. Stakes are high.

The winner gets Sweden, which survived the Scandinavian version of U.S./Canada in the other semifinal, for the gold on Sunday. The U.S. has made it to the finals twice in the past 30 years but hasn’t won it all since Miracle on Ice. While we wait, enjoy this dissection of possible shenanigans in the judging for last night’s women’s figure skating finals. Experts seem shocked that a Russian skater, on Russian ice, somehow outpointed Yuna Kim and Carolina Kostner, the favorites. Could there be … corruption at Sochi?

Update: Here’s the livestream.

Tags: Canada, hockey, medal, Olympics, semifinal, sochi, usa

Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Openthread:U.Svs.CanadainOlympichockey

Open thread: U.S vs. Canada in Olympic hockey semifinal

posted at 11:21 am on February 21, 2014 by Allahpundit

Noon ET on NBC Sports, or you can watch the livestream online by logging in via your cable-provider username and password. For hockey fans, it’s a rematch of the scintillating 2010 gold-medal game between two evergreen powerhouses. For the other 97 percent of us, it’s a magical brew of nationalism and revenge for not one but two overtime heartbreaks. According to Gallup, 93 percent of Americans rate Canada favorably; if they beat the U.S. again, that number could sink to the high 80s. Stakes are high.

The winner gets Sweden, which survived the Scandinavian version of U.S./Canada in the other semifinal, for the gold on Sunday. The U.S. has made it to the finals twice in the past 30 years but hasn’t won it all since Miracle on Ice. While we wait, enjoy this dissection of possible shenanigans in the judging for last night’s women’s figure skating finals. Experts seem shocked that a Russian skater, on Russian ice, somehow outpointed Yuna Kim and Carolina Kostner, the favorites. Could there be … corruption at Sochi?

Tags: Canada, hockey, medal, Olympics, semifinal, sochi, usa

Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

ObamaonKeystoneXL:Thisisjusthow

Obama on Keystone XL: This is just how we do things in the United States

posted at 5:21 pm on February 20, 2014 by Erika Johnsen

President Obama flew to Mexico yesterday for a conference with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Mexican President Peña Nieto that was largely about energy issues, and you just know Harper was pushing Obama on the Keystone XL pipeline behind closed doors. In the joint presser, however, it was all the usual trite faux-pleasantries, via NJ:

Obama defended what has been a years-long federal review while acknowledging that Harper, who has been seeking approval of the pipeline for years, has chafed at the U.S. process.

“There is a process that has been gone through, and I know it’s been extensive, and at times I’m sure Stephen feels, a little too laborious. But these are how we make these decisions about something that could potentially have a significant impact on America’s national economy and our national interests,” Obama said. …

“So the State Department has gone through its review. There is now a comment period in which other agencies weigh in. That will be evaluated by Secretary of State Kerry, and we’ll make a decision at that point,” Obama said.

Let me go ahead and fix that for you.

“There is a process on which my administration has delayed and obfuscated as much as possible, and I know it’s been extensive, and I’m fully aware that Stephen is royally ticked off about the appalling way I’ve been treating him. But these are how we make wildly politicized decisions that about something that we have known for several years now would have a significantly positive impact on America’s national economy and our national interests. So the State Department has gone through its umpteenth review. There is now a comment period in which other agencies weigh in, that will then be evaluated by my out-of-touch loon of a secretary of State and myself. You will wait for our decision, and you will like it.”

Much better.

I shudder to think about what the Obama administration might do with yesterday’s decision from a Nebraska judge invalidating the law that was used by the state government to approve the Keystone XL route. The state’s attorney general is already planning to appeal the ruling, but if the Obama administration can use it to further justify their interminable dithering, they will. I can hear it now: “Oh, man, we were totally, seriously just about to come to a decision, but if Canada has to re-propose their route for Nebraska’s approval again, we might have to have to start all over! What a shame!”

In other news from that joint press conference, a bunch of the companies that helped to spur the U.S. shale boom are looking to expand southward into Mexico — and Mexico is all for it. Their president wants to raise Mexico’s oil production to 3 million barrels a day by 2018, a a 25 percent increase from their production levels today, and they’d like help getting started on the shale drilling. There’s one huge, glaring problem standing in the way of that progress, though, via Quartz:

If all goes well, drillers responsible for a shale-oil bonanza in Texas will soon cross the southern US border and extend the hydraulic fracturing boom to Mexico. But first the Mexican government, foreign oil companies or some combination of the two will have to neutralize some of the most savage gangsters in the world. …

Trade rules will have to be relaxed to allow the US companies to quickly move labor and special equipment back and forth across the border when needed, experts here say. But more importantly, Peña has to deal with the Zetas and Gulf Cartel, two vicious drug- and gun-running gangs whose turf overlaps Mexico’s shale patch. Nabbings, extortion, murder and oil theft by the gangs have made US drillers—traditionally cavalier about violence in the areas where they work—wary of venturing into the shale-rich states of Tamaulipas, Coahuila and Nuevo Leon.

Tags: Barack Obama, Canada, energy, Keystone XL Pipeline, Mexico, Obama administration, Pena Nieto, Stephen Harper

Related Posts:

Source from: hotair