6 ms·

Ottawa has supported the keystone XL pipeline south. I don’t see what changes there. The democrats in the U.S. are the blocker for god knows what actual reason.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
TimorousBestie 1y ago
Oil companies have proven time and time again when their pipelines leak or their ships sink or their fracking liquid gets into the groundwater, they’re not liable for it. Payouts have historically been a tiny, minuscule fraction of damage done. And that’s when there was an EPA attempting to regulate them; that’s not going to happen moving forward. So why should I trust one to build in my backyard?
- dylan604 1y ago
  Before being neutered, was the EPA so powerful that it could regulate what happened in the great white north? While I get your sentiments about bigOil getting way with poisoning the land/seas, we can at least keep the government agencies from one country straight.
  - unsnap_biceps 1y ago
    The topic was "The democrats in the U.S. are the blocker for god knows what actual reason", so it makes sense that they were talking about a US agency to me
- slashdev 1y ago
  That’s not the reason. The oil goes by train which is more polluting and has the same consequences when trains derail.
  - pfannkuchen 1y ago
    Can’t a pipe spill a lot more oil than a train though?
    - smegger001 1y ago
      If the shutoffs dont close maybe but that is not likely But if the train derails and every tanker can on the train is going over and trains are reaching over a mile in length, it will probably be bigger
      - pfannkuchen 1y ago
        There are active shutoffs in the pipe more frequently than the length of a train? If so, I don’t think that is common knowledge. I wonder why pro pipeline people don’t highlight it more.
        b112 1y ago
        There is a lot of global warming money fighting pipelines. An example, tangent logic of this is the common trend to prevent roads from being built. There is a belief that this will result in fewer cars. Instead, it results in cars sitting and idling, and cars accelerating then stopping. Another example is a carpool lane. In many (not all!) cases, carpool lane are almost empty. Meanwhile, traffic stops and starts, or idles beside it. The most polluting a car does, is during acceleration. The most efficiency is driving a constant speed. So by trying to reduce car usage the wrong way, the result is as if 2x the number of cars are on the road. Better to focus on excellent public transit with hyper efficient ride times, than stop new roads. The same is with pipelines. Prevent anything that has to do with delivery, especially if it is safer and cheaper. After all, if it is safer there will be fewer oil spills, and the public won't mind this aspect of oil extraction. If it is cheaper, oil prices will fall, also bad for global warming. I feel, sadly, tunnel vision will destroy us all.
        TimorousBestie 1y ago
DFHippie 1y ago
> The democrats in the U.S. are the blocker for god knows what actual reason. It's not just God. I also know! The Democrats believe climate change is real, the externalities of fossil fuel extraction, processing, and consumption are real, the injured parties in pipeline construction are their constituents, and the fossil fuel companies fund Republicans and Republican-aligned organizations. It's a really deep mystery, but I've sussed it out. Me and God.
- slashdev 1y ago
  The oil doesn’t stay in the ground, it gets shipped via diesel trains without the pipeline. I’m guessing climate change is the reason, but it’s hard to see how the current state of affairs is better for the environment. Diesel trains are a lot less carbon friendly than pipelines.
  - DFHippie 1y ago
    Here's a thought experiment: if the diesel train works as well as the pipeline, why build the pipeline?
    - robertlagrant 1y ago
      Here's another: if a diesel train produces no pollution, why not use it everywhere?
      - DFHippie 1y ago
        Here's another observation (not a thought experiment): To figure out which scenario pollutes more, one could add up the various inputs and outputs. A producer is limited by the volume and cost of different means of transportation. It isn't apodictically true that the same volume of tar is delivered regardless of the means, so preventing a pipeline from being built does not necessarily increase net pollution. That being nebulous, the Democrats' motivations are less nebulous.
    - slashdev 1y ago
smegger001 1y ago
>The democrats in the U.S. are the blocker for god knows what actual reason. It would necessarily pass through Native land and the native tribes dont want it on their land. Forcing it through is a tribal sovereignty issue.
- slashdev 1y ago
  That wasn’t the issue
  - smegger001 1y ago
    "In a new bid to stop the Keystone XL pipeline, two Native American communities are suing the Trump administration, saying it failed to adhere to historical treaty boundaries and circumvented environmental impact analysis. As a result, they are asking a federal judge in Montana to rescind the 2017 permit and block any further construction or use of the controversial pipeline. The Fort Belknap Indian Community of Montana and the Rosebud Sioux Tribe of South Dakota contend there was no effort to study how the 1,200-mile pipeline project through their respective territories would affect their water systems and sacred lands." ---https://www.npr.org/2018/09/10/646523140/native-american-tribes-file-lawsuit-seeking-to-invalidate-keystone-xl-pipeline-p https://www.npr.org/2018/09/10/646523140/native-american-tri...
    - slashdev 1y ago
      It didn’t stop it. The Biden administration stopped it citing climate change as the reason. Do you mean to propose this was the real reason behind the scenes? I find it hard to believe.
hshdhdhj4444 1y ago
A little more than a month ago. https://mydakotan.com/2025/04/keystone-pipeline-resumes-operating-after-oil-spill-in-north-dakota/ https://mydakotan.com/2025/04/keystone-pipeline-resumes-oper...

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

TimorousBestie 1y ago

Oil companies have proven time and time again when their pipelines leak or their ships sink or their fracking liquid gets into the groundwater, they’re not liable for it. Payouts have historically been a tiny, minuscule fraction of damage done. And that’s when there was an EPA attempting to regulate them; that’s not going to happen moving forward. So why should I trust one to build in my backyard?

dylan604 1y ago
Before being neutered, was the EPA so powerful that it could regulate what happened in the great white north? While I get your sentiments about bigOil getting way with poisoning the land/seas, we can at least keep the government agencies from one country straight.
- unsnap_biceps 1y ago
  The topic was "The democrats in the U.S. are the blocker for god knows what actual reason", so it makes sense that they were talking about a US agency to me
slashdev 1y ago
That’s not the reason. The oil goes by train which is more polluting and has the same consequences when trains derail.
- pfannkuchen 1y ago
  Can’t a pipe spill a lot more oil than a train though?
  - smegger001 1y ago
    If the shutoffs dont close maybe but that is not likely But if the train derails and every tanker can on the train is going over and trains are reaching over a mile in length, it will probably be bigger
    - pfannkuchen 1y ago
      There are active shutoffs in the pipe more frequently than the length of a train? If so, I don’t think that is common knowledge. I wonder why pro pipeline people don’t highlight it more.
      - b112 1y ago
        There is a lot of global warming money fighting pipelines. An example, tangent logic of this is the common trend to prevent roads from being built. There is a belief that this will result in fewer cars. Instead, it results in cars sitting and idling, and cars accelerating then stopping. Another example is a carpool lane. In many (not all!) cases, carpool lane are almost empty. Meanwhile, traffic stops and starts, or idles beside it. The most polluting a car does, is during acceleration. The most efficiency is driving a constant speed. So by trying to reduce car usage the wrong way, the result is as if 2x the number of cars are on the road. Better to focus on excellent public transit with hyper efficient ride times, than stop new roads. The same is with pipelines. Prevent anything that has to do with delivery, especially if it is safer and cheaper. After all, if it is safer there will be fewer oil spills, and the public won't mind this aspect of oil extraction. If it is cheaper, oil prices will fall, also bad for global warming. I feel, sadly, tunnel vision will destroy us all.
        TimorousBestie 1y ago

DFHippie 1y ago

> The democrats in the U.S. are the blocker for god knows what actual reason. It's not just God. I also know! The Democrats believe climate change is real, the externalities of fossil fuel extraction, processing, and consumption are real, the injured parties in pipeline construction are their constituents, and the fossil fuel companies fund Republicans and Republican-aligned organizations. It's a really deep mystery, but I've sussed it out. Me and God.

slashdev 1y ago
The oil doesn’t stay in the ground, it gets shipped via diesel trains without the pipeline. I’m guessing climate change is the reason, but it’s hard to see how the current state of affairs is better for the environment. Diesel trains are a lot less carbon friendly than pipelines.
- DFHippie 1y ago
  Here's a thought experiment: if the diesel train works as well as the pipeline, why build the pipeline?
  - robertlagrant 1y ago
    Here's another: if a diesel train produces no pollution, why not use it everywhere?
    - DFHippie 1y ago
      Here's another observation (not a thought experiment): To figure out which scenario pollutes more, one could add up the various inputs and outputs. A producer is limited by the volume and cost of different means of transportation. It isn't apodictically true that the same volume of tar is delivered regardless of the means, so preventing a pipeline from being built does not necessarily increase net pollution. That being nebulous, the Democrats' motivations are less nebulous.
  - slashdev 1y ago

smegger001 1y ago

>The democrats in the U.S. are the blocker for god knows what actual reason. It would necessarily pass through Native land and the native tribes dont want it on their land. Forcing it through is a tribal sovereignty issue.

slashdev 1y ago
That wasn’t the issue
- smegger001 1y ago
  "In a new bid to stop the Keystone XL pipeline, two Native American communities are suing the Trump administration, saying it failed to adhere to historical treaty boundaries and circumvented environmental impact analysis. As a result, they are asking a federal judge in Montana to rescind the 2017 permit and block any further construction or use of the controversial pipeline. The Fort Belknap Indian Community of Montana and the Rosebud Sioux Tribe of South Dakota contend there was no effort to study how the 1,200-mile pipeline project through their respective territories would affect their water systems and sacred lands." ---https://www.npr.org/2018/09/10/646523140/native-american-tribes-file-lawsuit-seeking-to-invalidate-keystone-xl-pipeline-p https://www.npr.org/2018/09/10/646523140/native-american-tri...
  - slashdev 1y ago
    It didn’t stop it. The Biden administration stopped it citing climate change as the reason. Do you mean to propose this was the real reason behind the scenes? I find it hard to believe.

hshdhdhj4444 1y ago

A little more than a month ago. https://mydakotan.com/2025/04/keystone-pipeline-resumes-operating-after-oil-spill-in-north-dakota/ https://mydakotan.com/2025/04/keystone-pipeline-resumes-oper...