6 ms·

I don't like the oil economy at all, but revoking permits after a company has spent billions laying pipes using government-granted permits does leave a bad tast

I don't like the oil economy at all, but revoking permits after a company has spent billions laying pipes using government-granted permits does leave a bad taste in my mouth. It seems like bad precedent for the assumption to be that the federal government will pull the carpet out from under your feet (losing you your entire investment) whenever the political winds shift. Today it's an oil pipeline, but tomorrow it could be for a solar installation in a nature reserve, or new hydropower, or a nearly-complete nuclear power plant.

zbrozek 5y ago
This is key. It erodes trust in institutions, in this case the government itself. I personally wish it weren't permitted in the first place, but revoking the permit afterwards is the worst possible outcome.
- cryptoz 5y ago
  A government that ignores climate change loses far more trust than one who pays attention and acts in response. Permitting the building of new pipelines is absolutely a sign of an untrustworthy government. A government needs to be able to change its mind and always act in the best interests of the people. Building a pipeline because some rich corporation has some sunk costs is insane. Edit: Also, I only addressed the environmental issues, but the article also cites "U.S. landowners, Native American tribes". Don't you think its also good that they get a say in what gets built? And that it is likely that the early construction was done without full understanding by those groups impacted directly?
- happytoexplain 5y ago
  >revoking the permit afterwards is the worst possible outcome It seems like many people feel that it's the second to worst possible outcome.
- munk-a 5y ago
  I think it's important to also realize that Canada domestically (outside of Alberta) has been strongly opposed to expanding natural resource exportation[1]. The Kinder Morgan pipeline through BC was ~shut down~[2] - as have been multiple propositions to get the oil out through the maritime provinces. If Alberta had a coast they would never consider the keystone pipeline as an option but this is sort of a effort of last resort - every direction except south wants nothing to do with this and the constantly shifting political winds in America mean it's extremely unlikely that this project would actually be complete while the tar sands remain profitable. I think it's a bit unfair to talk about this permit being withdrawn without warning when literally every other route open for export has been shut down - it's like asking your dad for candy after your mom said no, they might go along with you for a bit but the outcome is likely to be swayed by the same basic facts. 1. Existing transportation is also highly problematic, one of the really big questions for Canadians here is whether the additional safety of pipelines is worth the cost to the environment, we've specifically paid that lack of safety cost several times including https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lac-M%C3%A9gantic_rail_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lac-M%C3%A9gantic_rail_disaste... and more generally https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon/lac-megantic-crude-oil-train-canada-guernsey-saskatchewan-rail-1.5608769 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon/lac-megantic-crude-... this is very much not a simple issue in Canada. 2. Oh hey - no it isn't - this is still actively ongoing as pointed out by the comment below
  - mig39 5y ago
    Isn't the Trans Mountain Pipeline expansion still going ahead? Didn't the Canadian federal government actually buy the pipeline company, and offer to indemnified any investor for any delays caused by other governments?
    - munk-a 5y ago
      Apparently yes, it's unshutdown for the moment - but the NDP provincial government is still impeding it. It's been up and down so many times now I'd lost track.
- mschuster91 5y ago
  > I personally wish it weren't permitted in the first place, but revoking the permit afterwards is the worst possible outcome. Why? It was obvious from the start of the planning that this project was at risk from political intervention given the continuous protests and the general political landscape (being blocked by Obama and then unblocked by Trump, with Democrats calling for the reversal of the decision). It was obvious that long-term political trends are leading towards ecological conservation, that international treaties limit CO2 emissions and that oil consumption will only go downwards given the rise of viable electric car models. The companies behind Keystone XL accepted this risk, and if they now go bankrupt or face massive losses as a result of not accounting for obvious risks, I don't shed any tears for them. They were aware, never forget that.
  - fallingknife 5y ago
    You missed some details there. It was approved under the Obama administration before it was rejected by the state department on the vague grounds that it is "not in the national interest." The state department was only involved since it crossed the border with Canada, and for deals with close allies like Canada, this approval is typically a formality. It sets a bad precedent when the government capriciously steps in to block a deal that has been years in the making because of political pressure.
  - zbrozek 5y ago
    The loss of trust in the finality of approvals is the key thing we should be shedding tears over. It would obviously have been far better not to permit it in the first place. Suppose a big offshore wind project gets underway now and an opposing government wins the next election - now there's precedent to just pull the plug. Or at a much smaller scale, suppose you've just won permission to build a house and a new city council is elected and revokes your permit. How much are you going to trust your government after that? It also widens the door for more forms of corruption. "Shame if that permit were to suddenly evaporate..." If you don't want carbon emissions, tax them to death. Or don't permit projects that produce them. But don't revoke permits of projects you've approved!
    - 5y ago
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > It erodes trust in institutions So the sequence of events here was: Permit denied in normal administrative course. Permit approved, illegally reversing factual determinations without sufficient support by subsequent administration, resulting in the approved permit being struck down by the courts, which was maintained through extensive litigation after the initial decision. Permit reapproved by executive order bypassing the environmemtal and procedural law constraints that resulted in the previous approval being revoked. Permit rerevoked by executive order undoing the previous order. Its certainly not a history that inspires trust in institutions generally, but focussing on the last step for that criticism is...bizarre.
- sixothree 5y ago
  Taking people's property and giving it to a private company erodes trust as well.
  - panny 5y ago
    It certainly does, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London
- yongjik 5y ago
  If this erodes trust in the government's commitment to allowing new fossil fuel projects, I'd consider that an absolute win.
  - bpodgursky 5y ago
    Inducting this lesson only to the most convenient level for your argument is intellectually dishonest to the point that I really hope you understand, deep down, that you are playing semantic games and don't actually believe this argument.
    - useragent86 5y ago
      Don't you understand that there are many people who, deep down, feel that destroying the fossil fuel industry is an absolute imperative, consequences be damned? For example, here's one in this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27454580 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27454580
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  I think there's unfortunately a pretty solid overlap between people cheering this decision and people who bemoan the erosion of trust in government institutions. But who can blame people for lack of trust. Mom said we could have candy if we cleaned our room and dad showed up and changed that. Room isn't gonna get cleaned the second time around.
- apendleton 5y ago
  From climate activists' perspectives, if oil companies are less trustful that any permits they're issued will be valid long enough to complete their projects, and it makes them more hesitant to start new infrastructure projects even during cooperative administrations, that's an even bigger win that the defeat of this single project. If you're making a broader argument that, say, people won't trust plumbing permits in building construction because the federal government revoked a permit for a cross-border oil pipeline... I suppose there's no way to know, but personally I just don't really buy it.
  - useragent86 5y ago
    > From climate activists' perspectives, if oil companies are less trustful that any permits they're issued will be valid long enough to complete their projects, and it makes them more hesitant to start new infrastructure projects even during cooperative administrations, that's an even bigger win that the defeat of this single project. What is climate activists' perspective on the price of everything increasing, leading to everyone's standard of living declining and poor nations remaining poor?
    - AgentOrange1234 5y ago
      Can’t speak for everyone, but my perspective is: ‘We can afford high prices more easily than an apocalypse.’
    - apendleton 5y ago
      I don't think we/they would grant the underlying premise that it's impossible to achieve low prices or a high standard of living, either here or abroad, without fossil fuels.
  - zbrozek 5y ago
    I agree that this is unlikely to start the slippery slope all the way down to plumbing permits. But it's pretty easy to imagine it putting a damper on other large-scale projects that will span administrations. Off the cuff I'd guess this is not what folks building reservoirs, power plants, transmission lines, rail, shipyards, etc want to see. What do you do? Get your permit and wait for a change of party and see if your permit poofs out of existence before breaking ground?
ryanong 5y ago
I would not have been revoked if it wasn’t illegal.
- bpodgursky 5y ago
  That's... a wild contortion of what it means to be legal. When the government grants a permit for me to do something, the sane thing is to assume that it is a legal thing to do. You can redefine, or re-interpret the law later to make something _now_ illegal, but that absolutely does not mean it was illegal at the time. That's 1984-style history rewriting.
  - takeda 5y ago
    Previous permit was also revoked by court. The analogy someone else already provided is apt. Kid asked dad if he can get a candy after mom said no. Then started crying when mom came and said it's not allowed.
ikiris 5y ago
They should have known going in it was a sham permit. When you take advantage of one of the most corrupt and inept administrations in modern times, you get what you pay for.
maxerickson 5y ago
Revocation is one of the first terms in the permit: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/04/03/2019-06654/authorizing-transcanada-keystone-pipeline-lp-to-construct-connect-operate-and-maintain-pipeline https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/04/03/2019-06... (in that permit, it comes right after revocation of an earlier, similar permit)
AnimalMuppet 5y ago
Yeah. Would you put private money into infrastructure in the US after this? I wouldn't. That leaves just government-funded infrastructure, with all the efficiency that usually brings...
- nielsbot 5y ago
  The pipeline wasn't for public use, so I don't think talking about public infrastructure applies here.
  - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
    From dictionary.com: "The fundamental facilities and systems serving a country, city, or area, as transportation and communication systems, power plants, and schools." In this sense, pipelines are infrastructure.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
ARandumGuy 5y ago
Are you proposing that governments should be unable to revoke permits? Because that's really the only way to prevent permits being revoked after a company has spent billions of dollars. I think the more pragmatic answer to these companies is "don't invest billions of dollars in controversial projects that can be undone if your permits are revoked"
- trixie_ 5y ago
  You contradict yourself arguing that the government should be able to revoke any permit, and then saying, don't invest in projects with permits which can be revoked. Any project can be 'controversial' depending on who is in power. The real pragmatic answer is that the government should be liable for investments lost by revoking a permit.
  - kelnos 5y ago
    This project has been controversial since inception, though, and that did not change when Trump and the GOP came into power in 2016, despite what seems to be a sham approval rammed through by that administration. The controversy and lawsuits did not magically disappear.
- fallingknife 5y ago
  Governments should only be allowed to revoke permits in narrowly defined circumstances laid out in the permit at the time it is granted. Governments should have as much (I would say even more) of an obligation to keep their word as any other party doing business in the economy.
grecy 5y ago
> revoking permits after a company has spent billions laying pipes using government-granted permits does leave a bad taste in my mouth. I agree that it's not ideal, but we have to remember things are changing rapidly, and we need to take decisive action if we have any hope of minimizing the most severe impacts of climate change. With the rapid price decline in solar and batteries, the shift to EVs and so many other things going on, we have to remember that anyone who invests in the "old way" is taking a huge risk. In this case their risk did not pay off. They could have chosen not to take that risk, or invest in something less risky.
Analemma_ 5y ago
The Keystone XL permit was originally denied, then (illegally) approved by Executive Order. The nature of Executive Orders is that they can be, and frequently are, tossed out by the next guy in office. This isn't a big secret, so I don't have a ton of sympathy for anyone who "spent billions laying pipes" under a permit granted by EO. If they wanted a lower risk of losing everything, they should've waited for the standard permit process, instead of gambling on the EO and that Trump would win another term.
- defaultname 5y ago
  It was originally denied by political decree. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/nov/06/obama-rejects-keystone-xl-pipeline https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/nov/06/obama-re... It was political from end to end, and was never denied on fundamental grounds, but instead has been governed by protectionism. What made it particularly farcical is that at the same time Obama was pontificating about the horror's of Alberta's oil and turning an environmental new leaf, US shale oil exploration (just as bad in every dimension) was growing at a staggering pace, and is now multiples the output of Alberta's oils ands. The quicker we transition to renewables the better, but the farce of Keystone was always just politics.
JuettnerDistrib 5y ago
> or a nearly-complete nuclear power plant. Nah, that would never happen. "Construction of the plant at Zwentendorf, Austria was finished but the plant never entered service. The start-up of the Zwentendorf plant, as well as the construction of the other 2 plants, was prevented by a referendum on 5 November 1978, in which a narrow majority of 50.47% voted against the start-up." [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zwentendorf_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zwentendorf_Nuclear_Power_Pl...
- Teknoman117 5y ago
  It seriously boggles my mind that the present environmental activists are celebrating the shuttering of nuclear power plants when they are mostly just being replaced by natural gas turbines (or fuel oil). Like, yeah, solar and wind and hydro are great, but we also keep saying you can't build PV in the desert because it'll cool them down (Nevada), that solar thermal vaporizes birds (California), that wind mulches birds (California), and that hydro power consumes to much land and destroys river systems (name a state with big rivers). Nuclear isn't nearly as harmful if you have recycling processes in place (recycling has been completely shuttered in the US) and don't build oversized reactors because of a regulatory failings that make many small reactors exponentially more expensive than a single massive one.
dlp211 5y ago
Investments have risks. This is a risk. I'm so tired of how we constantly frame things in terms that investments can't go bad.
eagsalazar2 5y ago
Live by the sword, die by the sword. These companies have been playing politics and lobbying all along themselves. And they only got the permit to begin with because of political winds shifting. This is the risk they take (like drilling in the arctic) when you make big bets on things that are extremely politically controversial and arguably not in the public interest (certainly not in the interest of the people whose lives are being turned upside down by eminent domain to make this possible). So in that sense your solar installation example isn't appropriate because generally solar installations aren't that controversial, aren't built on the broken backs of people who lived there, aren't against the public interest, and don't require millions in lobbying $$ to manipulate politicians to get it done to begin with.
frankydp 5y ago
Or more micro, the reversion of your homes building permit and HVAC as the unit you installed is now out of code, and some force of the government would be used to enforce your compliance, such as taxes or fines.
tzs 5y ago
I think you might be confusing Keystone XL with the rest of the Keystone pipe system. Keystone XL was to be a 1200 mile addition to the Keystone system, and they had just barely started laying pipe. They have paid about 90 miles of it.

zbrozek 5y ago

This is key. It erodes trust in institutions, in this case the government itself. I personally wish it weren't permitted in the first place, but revoking the permit afterwards is the worst possible outcome.

cryptoz 5y ago
A government that ignores climate change loses far more trust than one who pays attention and acts in response. Permitting the building of new pipelines is absolutely a sign of an untrustworthy government. A government needs to be able to change its mind and always act in the best interests of the people. Building a pipeline because some rich corporation has some sunk costs is insane. Edit: Also, I only addressed the environmental issues, but the article also cites "U.S. landowners, Native American tribes". Don't you think its also good that they get a say in what gets built? And that it is likely that the early construction was done without full understanding by those groups impacted directly?
happytoexplain 5y ago
>revoking the permit afterwards is the worst possible outcome It seems like many people feel that it's the second to worst possible outcome.
munk-a 5y ago
I think it's important to also realize that Canada domestically (outside of Alberta) has been strongly opposed to expanding natural resource exportation[1]. The Kinder Morgan pipeline through BC was ~shut down~[2] - as have been multiple propositions to get the oil out through the maritime provinces. If Alberta had a coast they would never consider the keystone pipeline as an option but this is sort of a effort of last resort - every direction except south wants nothing to do with this and the constantly shifting political winds in America mean it's extremely unlikely that this project would actually be complete while the tar sands remain profitable. I think it's a bit unfair to talk about this permit being withdrawn without warning when literally every other route open for export has been shut down - it's like asking your dad for candy after your mom said no, they might go along with you for a bit but the outcome is likely to be swayed by the same basic facts. 1. Existing transportation is also highly problematic, one of the really big questions for Canadians here is whether the additional safety of pipelines is worth the cost to the environment, we've specifically paid that lack of safety cost several times including https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lac-M%C3%A9gantic_rail_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lac-M%C3%A9gantic_rail_disaste... and more generally https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon/lac-megantic-crude-oil-train-canada-guernsey-saskatchewan-rail-1.5608769 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon/lac-megantic-crude-... this is very much not a simple issue in Canada. 2. Oh hey - no it isn't - this is still actively ongoing as pointed out by the comment below
- mig39 5y ago
  Isn't the Trans Mountain Pipeline expansion still going ahead? Didn't the Canadian federal government actually buy the pipeline company, and offer to indemnified any investor for any delays caused by other governments?
  - munk-a 5y ago
    Apparently yes, it's unshutdown for the moment - but the NDP provincial government is still impeding it. It's been up and down so many times now I'd lost track.
mschuster91 5y ago
> I personally wish it weren't permitted in the first place, but revoking the permit afterwards is the worst possible outcome. Why? It was obvious from the start of the planning that this project was at risk from political intervention given the continuous protests and the general political landscape (being blocked by Obama and then unblocked by Trump, with Democrats calling for the reversal of the decision). It was obvious that long-term political trends are leading towards ecological conservation, that international treaties limit CO2 emissions and that oil consumption will only go downwards given the rise of viable electric car models. The companies behind Keystone XL accepted this risk, and if they now go bankrupt or face massive losses as a result of not accounting for obvious risks, I don't shed any tears for them. They were aware, never forget that.
- fallingknife 5y ago
  You missed some details there. It was approved under the Obama administration before it was rejected by the state department on the vague grounds that it is "not in the national interest." The state department was only involved since it crossed the border with Canada, and for deals with close allies like Canada, this approval is typically a formality. It sets a bad precedent when the government capriciously steps in to block a deal that has been years in the making because of political pressure.
- zbrozek 5y ago
  The loss of trust in the finality of approvals is the key thing we should be shedding tears over. It would obviously have been far better not to permit it in the first place. Suppose a big offshore wind project gets underway now and an opposing government wins the next election - now there's precedent to just pull the plug. Or at a much smaller scale, suppose you've just won permission to build a house and a new city council is elected and revokes your permit. How much are you going to trust your government after that? It also widens the door for more forms of corruption. "Shame if that permit were to suddenly evaporate..." If you don't want carbon emissions, tax them to death. Or don't permit projects that produce them. But don't revoke permits of projects you've approved!
  - 5y ago
dragonwriter 5y ago
> It erodes trust in institutions So the sequence of events here was: Permit denied in normal administrative course. Permit approved, illegally reversing factual determinations without sufficient support by subsequent administration, resulting in the approved permit being struck down by the courts, which was maintained through extensive litigation after the initial decision. Permit reapproved by executive order bypassing the environmemtal and procedural law constraints that resulted in the previous approval being revoked. Permit rerevoked by executive order undoing the previous order. Its certainly not a history that inspires trust in institutions generally, but focussing on the last step for that criticism is...bizarre.
sixothree 5y ago
Taking people's property and giving it to a private company erodes trust as well.
- panny 5y ago
  It certainly does, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London
yongjik 5y ago
If this erodes trust in the government's commitment to allowing new fossil fuel projects, I'd consider that an absolute win.
- bpodgursky 5y ago
  Inducting this lesson only to the most convenient level for your argument is intellectually dishonest to the point that I really hope you understand, deep down, that you are playing semantic games and don't actually believe this argument.
  - useragent86 5y ago
    Don't you understand that there are many people who, deep down, feel that destroying the fossil fuel industry is an absolute imperative, consequences be damned? For example, here's one in this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27454580 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27454580
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
throwaway0a5e 5y ago
I think there's unfortunately a pretty solid overlap between people cheering this decision and people who bemoan the erosion of trust in government institutions. But who can blame people for lack of trust. Mom said we could have candy if we cleaned our room and dad showed up and changed that. Room isn't gonna get cleaned the second time around.
apendleton 5y ago
From climate activists' perspectives, if oil companies are less trustful that any permits they're issued will be valid long enough to complete their projects, and it makes them more hesitant to start new infrastructure projects even during cooperative administrations, that's an even bigger win that the defeat of this single project. If you're making a broader argument that, say, people won't trust plumbing permits in building construction because the federal government revoked a permit for a cross-border oil pipeline... I suppose there's no way to know, but personally I just don't really buy it.
- useragent86 5y ago
  > From climate activists' perspectives, if oil companies are less trustful that any permits they're issued will be valid long enough to complete their projects, and it makes them more hesitant to start new infrastructure projects even during cooperative administrations, that's an even bigger win that the defeat of this single project. What is climate activists' perspective on the price of everything increasing, leading to everyone's standard of living declining and poor nations remaining poor?
  - AgentOrange1234 5y ago
    Can’t speak for everyone, but my perspective is: ‘We can afford high prices more easily than an apocalypse.’
  - apendleton 5y ago
    I don't think we/they would grant the underlying premise that it's impossible to achieve low prices or a high standard of living, either here or abroad, without fossil fuels.
- zbrozek 5y ago
  I agree that this is unlikely to start the slippery slope all the way down to plumbing permits. But it's pretty easy to imagine it putting a damper on other large-scale projects that will span administrations. Off the cuff I'd guess this is not what folks building reservoirs, power plants, transmission lines, rail, shipyards, etc want to see. What do you do? Get your permit and wait for a change of party and see if your permit poofs out of existence before breaking ground?

ryanong 5y ago

I would not have been revoked if it wasn’t illegal.

bpodgursky 5y ago
That's... a wild contortion of what it means to be legal. When the government grants a permit for me to do something, the sane thing is to assume that it is a legal thing to do. You can redefine, or re-interpret the law later to make something _now_ illegal, but that absolutely does not mean it was illegal at the time. That's 1984-style history rewriting.
- takeda 5y ago
  Previous permit was also revoked by court. The analogy someone else already provided is apt. Kid asked dad if he can get a candy after mom said no. Then started crying when mom came and said it's not allowed.

ikiris 5y ago

They should have known going in it was a sham permit. When you take advantage of one of the most corrupt and inept administrations in modern times, you get what you pay for.

maxerickson 5y ago

Revocation is one of the first terms in the permit: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/04/03/2019-06654/authorizing-transcanada-keystone-pipeline-lp-to-construct-connect-operate-and-maintain-pipeline https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/04/03/2019-06... (in that permit, it comes right after revocation of an earlier, similar permit)

AnimalMuppet 5y ago

Yeah. Would you put private money into infrastructure in the US after this? I wouldn't. That leaves just government-funded infrastructure, with all the efficiency that usually brings...

nielsbot 5y ago
The pipeline wasn't for public use, so I don't think talking about public infrastructure applies here.
- AnimalMuppet 5y ago
  From dictionary.com: "The fundamental facilities and systems serving a country, city, or area, as transportation and communication systems, power plants, and schools." In this sense, pipelines are infrastructure.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

ARandumGuy 5y ago

Are you proposing that governments should be unable to revoke permits? Because that's really the only way to prevent permits being revoked after a company has spent billions of dollars. I think the more pragmatic answer to these companies is "don't invest billions of dollars in controversial projects that can be undone if your permits are revoked"

trixie_ 5y ago
You contradict yourself arguing that the government should be able to revoke any permit, and then saying, don't invest in projects with permits which can be revoked. Any project can be 'controversial' depending on who is in power. The real pragmatic answer is that the government should be liable for investments lost by revoking a permit.
- kelnos 5y ago
  This project has been controversial since inception, though, and that did not change when Trump and the GOP came into power in 2016, despite what seems to be a sham approval rammed through by that administration. The controversy and lawsuits did not magically disappear.
fallingknife 5y ago
Governments should only be allowed to revoke permits in narrowly defined circumstances laid out in the permit at the time it is granted. Governments should have as much (I would say even more) of an obligation to keep their word as any other party doing business in the economy.

grecy 5y ago

> revoking permits after a company has spent billions laying pipes using government-granted permits does leave a bad taste in my mouth. I agree that it's not ideal, but we have to remember things are changing rapidly, and we need to take decisive action if we have any hope of minimizing the most severe impacts of climate change. With the rapid price decline in solar and batteries, the shift to EVs and so many other things going on, we have to remember that anyone who invests in the "old way" is taking a huge risk. In this case their risk did not pay off. They could have chosen not to take that risk, or invest in something less risky.

Analemma_ 5y ago

The Keystone XL permit was originally denied, then (illegally) approved by Executive Order. The nature of Executive Orders is that they can be, and frequently are, tossed out by the next guy in office. This isn't a big secret, so I don't have a ton of sympathy for anyone who "spent billions laying pipes" under a permit granted by EO. If they wanted a lower risk of losing everything, they should've waited for the standard permit process, instead of gambling on the EO and that Trump would win another term.

defaultname 5y ago
It was originally denied by political decree. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/nov/06/obama-rejects-keystone-xl-pipeline https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/nov/06/obama-re... It was political from end to end, and was never denied on fundamental grounds, but instead has been governed by protectionism. What made it particularly farcical is that at the same time Obama was pontificating about the horror's of Alberta's oil and turning an environmental new leaf, US shale oil exploration (just as bad in every dimension) was growing at a staggering pace, and is now multiples the output of Alberta's oils ands. The quicker we transition to renewables the better, but the farce of Keystone was always just politics.

JuettnerDistrib 5y ago

> or a nearly-complete nuclear power plant. Nah, that would never happen. "Construction of the plant at Zwentendorf, Austria was finished but the plant never entered service. The start-up of the Zwentendorf plant, as well as the construction of the other 2 plants, was prevented by a referendum on 5 November 1978, in which a narrow majority of 50.47% voted against the start-up." [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zwentendorf_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zwentendorf_Nuclear_Power_Pl...

Teknoman117 5y ago
It seriously boggles my mind that the present environmental activists are celebrating the shuttering of nuclear power plants when they are mostly just being replaced by natural gas turbines (or fuel oil). Like, yeah, solar and wind and hydro are great, but we also keep saying you can't build PV in the desert because it'll cool them down (Nevada), that solar thermal vaporizes birds (California), that wind mulches birds (California), and that hydro power consumes to much land and destroys river systems (name a state with big rivers). Nuclear isn't nearly as harmful if you have recycling processes in place (recycling has been completely shuttered in the US) and don't build oversized reactors because of a regulatory failings that make many small reactors exponentially more expensive than a single massive one.

dlp211 5y ago

Investments have risks. This is a risk. I'm so tired of how we constantly frame things in terms that investments can't go bad.

eagsalazar2 5y ago

Live by the sword, die by the sword. These companies have been playing politics and lobbying all along themselves. And they only got the permit to begin with because of political winds shifting. This is the risk they take (like drilling in the arctic) when you make big bets on things that are extremely politically controversial and arguably not in the public interest (certainly not in the interest of the people whose lives are being turned upside down by eminent domain to make this possible). So in that sense your solar installation example isn't appropriate because generally solar installations aren't that controversial, aren't built on the broken backs of people who lived there, aren't against the public interest, and don't require millions in lobbying $$ to manipulate politicians to get it done to begin with.

frankydp 5y ago

Or more micro, the reversion of your homes building permit and HVAC as the unit you installed is now out of code, and some force of the government would be used to enforce your compliance, such as taxes or fines.

tzs 5y ago

I think you might be confusing Keystone XL with the rest of the Keystone pipe system. Keystone XL was to be a 1200 mile addition to the Keystone system, and they had just barely started laying pipe. They have paid about 90 miles of it.