4 ms·

> The pipeline that was meant to bring their crude, the keystone pipeline was cancelled after its permits were revoked. The Keystone XL pipeline was meant to t

> The pipeline that was meant to bring their crude, the keystone pipeline was cancelled after its permits were revoked. The Keystone XL pipeline was meant to take Canadian oil to the Gulf of Mexico to refineries intending to export it. Very little of the refinery infrastructure at the terminal end of the pipeline was equipped to redistribute it domestically. Something like 70% of the oil transported by Keystone XL would have been for export.

Teever 5y ago
Also as a Canadian I'm a little baffled why we should be prioritizing building pipelines that run north to south to export our oil when we can run pipelines east to west to supply our own people and export on our own shores.
- ipaddr 5y ago
  Many reasons: Because the market is bigger and demand is greater Because Quebec is powered by hydro and doesn't need oil and doesn't want the pipeline going east because they sell power. The eastern provinces get oil from offshore locally or from Saudi/middle east so the cost doesn't make sense. The oil is going south anyways on trucks. The pipeline took so many trucks off the road.
  - soperj 5y ago
    >Because Quebec is powered by hydro and doesn't need oil and doesn't want the pipeline going east because they sell power. Quebec uses tons of oil every day, whenever they fill up their cars. Most of it comes from Saudi Arabia, brought into the Irving Refinery in New Brunswick. Irving would use Canadian oil if they could get it.
    - cmrdporcupine 5y ago
      Sorry but this is factually incorrect. The majority of Quebec's oil is from Alberta, with some small amount being from the US and only a tiny portion coming from the Irving refinery. https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/en/data-analysis/energy-markets/provincial-territorial-energy-profiles/provincial-territorial-energy-profiles-quebec.html https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/en/data-analysis/energy-markets/pr... "Line 9 has been delivering crude oil from Sarnia, Ontario to Montreal since its reversal became operational in December 2015. The line has a capacity of 300 Mb/d and transports a combination of oil from western Canada and the U.S. Midwest. In 2018, deliveries of imported and eastern Canadian crude oil on the Portland-Montreal Pipeline fell to an average 2.5 Mb/d, less than 1% of its capacity." (italics mine) That being said, GPP is partially correct: Quebec is the highest electricity producer and consumer in Canada, but it's almost entirely hydroelectric and their electricity is cheap. "Quebec’s emissions per capita are the lowest in Canada at 9.4 tonnes CO2e – 52% below the Canadian average of 19.6 tonnes per capita." With the highest electric vehicle uptake in the country, and the lowest greenhouse gas emissions, seems Quebec has the right to be smug (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnFAAdOBB1c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnFAAdOBB1c) Anyways, please don't spread political disinformation. Quebec is not a significant consumer of Saudi oil, despite what Jason Kenney has to say about it.
      - soperj 5y ago
        >Quebec’s emissions per capita are the lowest in Canada at 9.4 tonnes CO2e – 52% below the Canadian average of 19.6 tonnes per capita." Only because they don't count any emissions that come from Hydro. We have no idea what they actually producing because they don't test any of the dam reservoirs for methane emissions. >Quebec is not a significant consumer of Saudi oil, despite what Jason Kenney has to say about it. Not my province, so I don't consume anything he says. Considering the biggest refinery in Quebec (Valero refinery in Levis, 265M barrels/day) refines sweet crude, I sincerely doubt it's getting the majority of it's oil from Alberta.
- vkou 5y ago
  As a non-Albertan, I'm baffled by why Alberta thinks that building east-to-west pipelines to prop up their economy, while saddling their neighbours with all the risks is good policy. I mean, I understand that may be a good policy for an Alberta, but there's no reason why anyone else should think it's a good policy for them.
  - earleybird 5y ago
    In what way is a pipeline riskier than truck/rail/ship?
    - vkou 5y ago
      False dichotomy. It's not a choice between pipeline and rail, it's a choice between pipeline, rail, and nothing. Since its neighbours receive nothing but liabilities, regardless of which option is taken, I'll go with nothing. Tar sands oil is an endless, pointless jobs program. It's barely afloat when oil prices are high, and a rock around the neck of the Canadian economy, and GHG commitments when they aren't. I'm not interested in drastically cutting back on my energy usage, to balance the books with one of the dirtiest fuel producers in the world. Pipelines do nothing for me, but encourage this economically-destructive industry to expand. For every dollar of wealth it generates, it destroys a dollar and a dime.
      - earleybird 5y ago
        I'm looking at it through a lens of least impact overall and totally agree about the tar sands. Trucking is wasteful, shipping and trucking don't have a very good ecological safety record. A good step in reducing environmental effects of oil is to stop exporting it as that just moves the problem elsewhere. Being self sufficient and weaning ourselves off of oil & gas is a step in that direction. We need to fix the problems at home before telling others what to do.
      - cmrdporcupine 5y ago
        Absolutely, 100%. And the distortions that "rip and ship" makes in the economy aren't worth it when oil prices are high. It makes some people rich but most of us just suffer net effects and I'm not even talking about climate change. I've lived in Edmonton during oil-boom times, and during not-oil-boom times.. and the corrosive effect of the boom and bust cycle on the Albertan economy, it's not pretty. And a high per-barrel price in Alberta does nothing good for manufacturing in the rest of the country, dragging our dollar up and making our exports less attractive and the costs of production higher. When the dollar is high also makes my labour as a software engineer more expensive, without much benefit to me. Ah well, enough ranting, off to go pick up sushi in my electric car and I'm not even joking.
- earleybird 5y ago
  Because our federal government is entirely self serving (from a western perspective). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Energy_Program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Energy_Program
  - guyzero 5y ago
    Seems like axe grinding to mention a policy that ended 35 years ago.
- cmrdporcupine 5y ago
  Why do you think this is not already the case? Just curious, because it seems like many people in my birth province of Alberta aren't aware that we already have these pipelines, and think that people here in Ontario and in Quebec are burning Saudi oil. Line 9 runs practically right behind my house, and since it was reversed some years ago it feeds facilities in Ontario (and Quebec) with Alberta oil. Line 5 runs under the great lakes, all the way from western Canada to refineries in Sarnia (and is currently under threat from Mich. governor, but that's a separate topic) 90ish percent of Ontario's oil consumption is domestic oil depending on time of year and so on. The remainder is mostly from the US. Small % from middle east. Oil from Alberta makes it all the way to refineries near Montreal. Last I looked 70% of Quebec's oil is domestic origin. Politicians in Alberta have become masters of ignoring this key fact in their rabble rousing. Could capacity be increased? Maybe. Is it strictly necessary? I don't know. Should we be reducing consumption anyways? Yes. See map here, on Enbridge's website, zoom in to Ontario: https://www.enbridge.com/reports/2021-liquids-pipelines-customer-handbook/maps https://www.enbridge.com/reports/2021-liquids-pipelines-cust... Now, the Atlantic provinces, that's another story. But a much smaller market.
kodah 5y ago
I was curious about this so I looked around. From what I can tell it looks like what you're saying is part of a political disinformation campaign started by Kirsten Gillibrand. https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2017/apr/16/kirsten-gillibrand/will-oil-keystone-xl-pipeline-stay-us/ https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2017/apr/16/kirsten-gi... https://www.lsu.edu/hss/english/files/university_writing_files/item53134.pdf https://www.lsu.edu/hss/english/files/university_writing_fil... (Page 5) If I understand these summaries correctly: 1. Countries in Latin America are developing and therefore using more oil so they have less to share with us. 2. We are consuming slightly more oil. 3. Oil obtained from hostile and unreliable regions should be replaced. The effects would be that oil consumed from the pipeline would be cheaper, it would be more reliable, and while not being totally for domestic use would make a significant dent in our oil consumption in the right categories. Edit: Opposition to the Keystone XL likely would have been more effective if it focused on (potential) environmental impacts as well as the spill that occurred in 2017. I think that's what the Biden administration focused on when it cancelled the permits.
- giantrobot 5y ago
  PolitiFact's article is foolishly splitting hairs. The concern about Keystone XL's exports was never about the oil but the refined products (gas, etc). The Texas refineries that would have been at the XL's terminus already export a majority of their refined products. They're not the only refineries that handle heavy crude but they are the ones with the easiest access to the export markets of Central and South America.
  - kodah 5y ago
    > It is true that exports of petroleum products from Gulf Coast refineries have increased considerably in recent years. That’s part of why PolitiFact rated a similar statement by Obama Mostly False in 2014. While the trend adds a grain of truth to her claim, it does not mean all of the oil that will come from the Keystone XL pipeline will be immediately exported. I don't think it's splitting hairs, that's the main point of the conclusion. What she said: The Keystone XL pipeline "doesn’t even have any oil for America." is verifiably untrue.

Teever 5y ago

Also as a Canadian I'm a little baffled why we should be prioritizing building pipelines that run north to south to export our oil when we can run pipelines east to west to supply our own people and export on our own shores.

ipaddr 5y ago
Many reasons: Because the market is bigger and demand is greater Because Quebec is powered by hydro and doesn't need oil and doesn't want the pipeline going east because they sell power. The eastern provinces get oil from offshore locally or from Saudi/middle east so the cost doesn't make sense. The oil is going south anyways on trucks. The pipeline took so many trucks off the road.
- soperj 5y ago
  >Because Quebec is powered by hydro and doesn't need oil and doesn't want the pipeline going east because they sell power. Quebec uses tons of oil every day, whenever they fill up their cars. Most of it comes from Saudi Arabia, brought into the Irving Refinery in New Brunswick. Irving would use Canadian oil if they could get it.
  - cmrdporcupine 5y ago
    Sorry but this is factually incorrect. The majority of Quebec's oil is from Alberta, with some small amount being from the US and only a tiny portion coming from the Irving refinery. https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/en/data-analysis/energy-markets/provincial-territorial-energy-profiles/provincial-territorial-energy-profiles-quebec.html https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/en/data-analysis/energy-markets/pr... "Line 9 has been delivering crude oil from Sarnia, Ontario to Montreal since its reversal became operational in December 2015. The line has a capacity of 300 Mb/d and transports a combination of oil from western Canada and the U.S. Midwest. In 2018, deliveries of imported and eastern Canadian crude oil on the Portland-Montreal Pipeline fell to an average 2.5 Mb/d, less than 1% of its capacity." (italics mine) That being said, GPP is partially correct: Quebec is the highest electricity producer and consumer in Canada, but it's almost entirely hydroelectric and their electricity is cheap. "Quebec’s emissions per capita are the lowest in Canada at 9.4 tonnes CO2e – 52% below the Canadian average of 19.6 tonnes per capita." With the highest electric vehicle uptake in the country, and the lowest greenhouse gas emissions, seems Quebec has the right to be smug (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnFAAdOBB1c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnFAAdOBB1c) Anyways, please don't spread political disinformation. Quebec is not a significant consumer of Saudi oil, despite what Jason Kenney has to say about it.
    - soperj 5y ago
      >Quebec’s emissions per capita are the lowest in Canada at 9.4 tonnes CO2e – 52% below the Canadian average of 19.6 tonnes per capita." Only because they don't count any emissions that come from Hydro. We have no idea what they actually producing because they don't test any of the dam reservoirs for methane emissions. >Quebec is not a significant consumer of Saudi oil, despite what Jason Kenney has to say about it. Not my province, so I don't consume anything he says. Considering the biggest refinery in Quebec (Valero refinery in Levis, 265M barrels/day) refines sweet crude, I sincerely doubt it's getting the majority of it's oil from Alberta.
vkou 5y ago
As a non-Albertan, I'm baffled by why Alberta thinks that building east-to-west pipelines to prop up their economy, while saddling their neighbours with all the risks is good policy. I mean, I understand that may be a good policy for an Alberta, but there's no reason why anyone else should think it's a good policy for them.
- earleybird 5y ago
  In what way is a pipeline riskier than truck/rail/ship?
  - vkou 5y ago
    False dichotomy. It's not a choice between pipeline and rail, it's a choice between pipeline, rail, and nothing. Since its neighbours receive nothing but liabilities, regardless of which option is taken, I'll go with nothing. Tar sands oil is an endless, pointless jobs program. It's barely afloat when oil prices are high, and a rock around the neck of the Canadian economy, and GHG commitments when they aren't. I'm not interested in drastically cutting back on my energy usage, to balance the books with one of the dirtiest fuel producers in the world. Pipelines do nothing for me, but encourage this economically-destructive industry to expand. For every dollar of wealth it generates, it destroys a dollar and a dime.
    - earleybird 5y ago
      I'm looking at it through a lens of least impact overall and totally agree about the tar sands. Trucking is wasteful, shipping and trucking don't have a very good ecological safety record. A good step in reducing environmental effects of oil is to stop exporting it as that just moves the problem elsewhere. Being self sufficient and weaning ourselves off of oil & gas is a step in that direction. We need to fix the problems at home before telling others what to do.
    - cmrdporcupine 5y ago
      Absolutely, 100%. And the distortions that "rip and ship" makes in the economy aren't worth it when oil prices are high. It makes some people rich but most of us just suffer net effects and I'm not even talking about climate change. I've lived in Edmonton during oil-boom times, and during not-oil-boom times.. and the corrosive effect of the boom and bust cycle on the Albertan economy, it's not pretty. And a high per-barrel price in Alberta does nothing good for manufacturing in the rest of the country, dragging our dollar up and making our exports less attractive and the costs of production higher. When the dollar is high also makes my labour as a software engineer more expensive, without much benefit to me. Ah well, enough ranting, off to go pick up sushi in my electric car and I'm not even joking.
earleybird 5y ago
Because our federal government is entirely self serving (from a western perspective). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Energy_Program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Energy_Program
- guyzero 5y ago
  Seems like axe grinding to mention a policy that ended 35 years ago.
cmrdporcupine 5y ago
Why do you think this is not already the case? Just curious, because it seems like many people in my birth province of Alberta aren't aware that we already have these pipelines, and think that people here in Ontario and in Quebec are burning Saudi oil. Line 9 runs practically right behind my house, and since it was reversed some years ago it feeds facilities in Ontario (and Quebec) with Alberta oil. Line 5 runs under the great lakes, all the way from western Canada to refineries in Sarnia (and is currently under threat from Mich. governor, but that's a separate topic) 90ish percent of Ontario's oil consumption is domestic oil depending on time of year and so on. The remainder is mostly from the US. Small % from middle east. Oil from Alberta makes it all the way to refineries near Montreal. Last I looked 70% of Quebec's oil is domestic origin. Politicians in Alberta have become masters of ignoring this key fact in their rabble rousing. Could capacity be increased? Maybe. Is it strictly necessary? I don't know. Should we be reducing consumption anyways? Yes. See map here, on Enbridge's website, zoom in to Ontario: https://www.enbridge.com/reports/2021-liquids-pipelines-customer-handbook/maps https://www.enbridge.com/reports/2021-liquids-pipelines-cust... Now, the Atlantic provinces, that's another story. But a much smaller market.

kodah 5y ago

I was curious about this so I looked around. From what I can tell it looks like what you're saying is part of a political disinformation campaign started by Kirsten Gillibrand. https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2017/apr/16/kirsten-gillibrand/will-oil-keystone-xl-pipeline-stay-us/ https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2017/apr/16/kirsten-gi... https://www.lsu.edu/hss/english/files/university_writing_files/item53134.pdf https://www.lsu.edu/hss/english/files/university_writing_fil... (Page 5) If I understand these summaries correctly: 1. Countries in Latin America are developing and therefore using more oil so they have less to share with us. 2. We are consuming slightly more oil. 3. Oil obtained from hostile and unreliable regions should be replaced. The effects would be that oil consumed from the pipeline would be cheaper, it would be more reliable, and while not being totally for domestic use would make a significant dent in our oil consumption in the right categories. Edit: Opposition to the Keystone XL likely would have been more effective if it focused on (potential) environmental impacts as well as the spill that occurred in 2017. I think that's what the Biden administration focused on when it cancelled the permits.

giantrobot 5y ago
PolitiFact's article is foolishly splitting hairs. The concern about Keystone XL's exports was never about the oil but the refined products (gas, etc). The Texas refineries that would have been at the XL's terminus already export a majority of their refined products. They're not the only refineries that handle heavy crude but they are the ones with the easiest access to the export markets of Central and South America.
- kodah 5y ago
  > It is true that exports of petroleum products from Gulf Coast refineries have increased considerably in recent years. That’s part of why PolitiFact rated a similar statement by Obama Mostly False in 2014. While the trend adds a grain of truth to her claim, it does not mean all of the oil that will come from the Keystone XL pipeline will be immediately exported. I don't think it's splitting hairs, that's the main point of the conclusion. What she said: The Keystone XL pipeline "doesn’t even have any oil for America." is verifiably untrue.