Oilsands has other takers,

[styky]

FP’s Peter Foster: Follow the Keystone money, then expose the misinformation

Peter Foster Jan 19, 2012 – 7:44 PM ET

Don’t just follow the money — expose the hysterical misrepresentations and the tactics

Congressional Republican attempts to force U.S. President Barack Obama’s hand on the Keystone XL pipeline produced the required result on Wednesday, at least from the GOP perspective. The President gave the project the thumbs-down, and Republicans instantly castigated Mr. Obama as a job destroyer. For his part, the President naturally made no mention of toadying to radical greens, and even claimed that he had nothing against the pipeline, which would create tens of thousands of jobs and is designed to take up to 900,000 barrels a day of diluted bitumen from the Alberta oil sands to the Gulf Coast. His rejection, rather, was due to Congress’s “rushed and arbitrary deadline,” which prevented the State Department from gathering material necessary to “protect the American people.”

Such electoral manoeuvering has hardly done Keystone sponsor TransCanada — or the oil sands more generally — any favours. Prime Minister Stephen Harper expressed “profound disappointment” at Wednesday’s decision, and reportedly told Mr. Obama of Canada’s determination to diversify export markets. This will be easier said than done. While emphasis is on aboriginal opposition to the Enbridge-sponsored Northern Gateway line to take oil sands oil to Asian markets via the West Coast, that opposition is significantly being funded and led by the same radical environmental groups that stalled Keystone XL, and will certainly attempt to stall, or kill, a modified application. Read more...............http://opinion.financialpost.com/2012/0 ... formation/

[RedDog]

Forget Keystone. Here's what I would do if Czar for a day. Suspend welfare transfer extortions (well I would have done that long ago anyway). Take those billions and build the largest refinery on earth somewhere between Fort Saskatchewan and Edmonton's Refinery Row - almost within sight of each other any way. Deal with this situation entirely within Alberta and rake the revenue later from those who want the commodity.

It's time for Alberta to take charge of this and determine our own destiny. Not Ottawa. Not a foreign country. (often one and the same) Unfortunately this current Premier is not the one to undertake that mission. With apologies, she hasn't got the balls.

[styky]

Five myths about the Keystone XL pipeline
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... tid=pm_pop

[skeena484]

Forget Keystone. Here's what I would do if Czar for a day. Suspend welfare transfer extortions (well I would have done that long ago anyway). Take those billions and build the largest refinery on earth somewhere between Fort Saskatchewan and Edmonton's Refinery Row - almost within sight of each other any way. Deal with this situation entirely within Alberta and rake the revenue later from those who want the commodity.

It's time for Alberta to take charge of this and determine our own destiny. Not Ottawa. Not a foreign country. (often one and the same) Unfortunately this current Premier is not the one to undertake that mission. With apologies, she hasn't got the balls.

RedDog you are so on the mark!

For the sake of our children and grand children Albertan’s must take control of our own destiny. It’s imperative we stop kowtowing to Ottawa, other provincial governments or international special interest groups. Alberta has the people, the initiative and the recourses to lead the free world. To accomplish this we must elect a provincial government that will put the interests of Alberta ahead of political partisanship or political greed. When I say elect a government I’m not just referring to a Premier or party leader. We need a wholesale cleaning of the Alberta legislature. WE must convince young Albertans to pay attention and get involved in the process. I speak with young, hard working Albertans every day that have never voted in an election. When I ask why the answer is always the same. “ what difference would it make” Well we have a job to do and that is to convince the younger generation of Albertans that they own this province and can have a say and their voice will be heard.

[RedDog]

Forget Keystone. Here's what I would do if Czar for a day. Suspend welfare transfer extortions (well I would have done that long ago anyway). Take those billions and build the largest refinery on earth somewhere between Fort Saskatchewan and Edmonton's Refinery Row - almost within sight of each other any way. Deal with this situation entirely within Alberta and rake the revenue later from those who want the commodity.

It's time for Alberta to take charge of this and determine our own destiny. Not Ottawa. Not a foreign country. (often one and the same) Unfortunately this current Premier is not the one to undertake that mission. With apologies, she hasn't got the balls.

RedDog you are so on the mark!

For the sake of our children and grand children Albertan’s must take control of our own destiny. It’s imperative we stop kowtowing to Ottawa, other provincial governments or international special interest groups. Alberta has the people, the initiative and the recourses to lead the free world. To accomplish this we must elect a provincial government that will put the interests of Alberta ahead of political partisanship or political greed. When I say elect a government I’m not just referring to a Premier or party leader. We need a wholesale cleaning of the Alberta legislature. WE must convince young Albertans to pay attention and get involved in the process. I speak with young, hard working Albertans every day that have never voted in an election. When I ask why the answer is always the same. “ what difference would it make” Well we have a job to do and that is to convince the younger generation of Albertans that they own this province and can have a say and their voice will be heard.

Thanks. Yes I would take decisive steps now. They're trying to land lock Alberta. We have indians on garbage dump reserves now lecturing on environmental responsibility and celebrities arriving on private jets doing the same. Let's do it in Alberta and pocket the money. They can't stop tankers on the highways and trains going right past their bedroom windows - which is taking place now anyway without a whimper as though these freight trains run on air and haul only cotton balls and Q-Tips. Go down the CPR line directly to the Amtrak line in Shelby, Montana and straight west to ports at SeaTac. Shelby's a fine community. Build them a new school and a swimming pool for the press they'll take when Robert Redford and Kevin Bacon arrive.

[Smaug]

Yes, they are trying to shut Alberta oil in, and it is making me laugh. In the next ten years the world is in for a nasty shock. Alberta is the only place on the planet capable of increasing oil production by ten million barrels a day.

The worlds four other giant oilfields will lose most of those millions of barrels a day in production declines over the next ten years ..... so the longer development in Alberta is delayed, the higher the price of oil will get in the 2020's and the deeper the recession caused by oil shortages.

[styky]

Report: Canada Pledges to Sell Oil to Asia After Obama Rejects Keystone Pipeline
http://junkscience.com/2012/01/20/repor ... -pipeline/

[styky]

http://standeyo.com/NEWS/12_Pics_of_Day ... .comic.gif

[styky]

China in Canada, part 3: We need a plan

Special to Financial Post Jan 19, 2012 – 6:54 PM ET | Last Updated: Jan 20, 2012 12:02 AM ET
Ottawa still has little in place on how to engage Beijing and how to take advantage of the largest growing market in the world. Last in a series.

By Wenran Jiang

President Barack Obama’s rejection of Keystone XL pipeline came as an additional blow to Canada’s efforts for further expansion into the U.S. energy market. Minister of Natural Resources Joe Oliver responded by emphasizing the heightened urgency for exploring the Asian market. Prime Minister Stephen Harper calls the Keystone a wake-up call for Canada. It is certain that energy co-operation with China will be high on the agenda when Harper makes his second visit to China next month...........http://opinion.financialpost.com/2012/0 ... ed-a-plan/

[free_life2]

Video: Canadian Talk Show Host Destroys Obama Over Keystone Decision

This is great stuff. I was going to add it as an update to the previous post on this topic but it deserves its own headline. Ezra Levant hosts a show, The Source, for Canada’s Sun News. In a very well-researched presentation, he takes a comprehensive look at Obama’s idiocy over the Keystone Pipeline. Be sure to watch the whole thing and pay particular attention to the map of the alleged “pristine, environmentally sensitive area” through which the pipleline will pass. I don’t know who this guy is, but he certainly did his homework.

http://conservatives4palin.com/2012/01/ ... ision.html

[Ogopogo]

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... tate_.html


Saudi Arabia. Nigeria. Venezuela. Canada?
Is our neighbor to the north becoming a jingoistic petro-state?

By Will Oremus|Posted Friday, Jan. 20, 2012, at 6:46 PM ET

Canadian flag.

A flag of protest against the Canadian tar-sands oil industry

Carl Court/AFP/Getty Images.

It’s well known that America’s dependence on foreign oil forces us to partner with some pretty unsavory regimes. Take, for instance, the country that provides by far the largest share of our petroleum imports. Its regime, in thrall to big oil interests, has grown increasingly bellicose, labeling environmental activists “radicals” and “terrorists” and is considering a crackdown on nonprofits that oppose its policies. It blames political dissent on the influence of “foreigners,” while steamrolling domestic opposition to oil projects bankrolled entirely by overseas investors. Meanwhile, its skyrocketing oil exports have sent the value of its currency soaring, enriching energy industry barons but crippling other sectors of its economy.

Yes, Canada is becoming a jingoistic petro-state.

OK, so our friendly northern neighbor isn’t exactly Saudi Arabia or Venezuela. But neither is it the verdant progressive utopia once viewed as a haven by American liberals fed up with George W. Bush. These days Canada has a Dubya of its own. And judging by a flurry of negative press from around the world—the latest: Archbishop Desmond Tutu and other African leaders are taking out newspaper ads accusing Canada of contributing to famine and drought on the continent—it seems anti-Canadianism could be the new anti-Americanism.
Advertisement

Stephen Harper, the son of an oil-company accountant, built his political career in Alberta, a province whose right-wing tendencies and booming energy sector make it Canada’s equivalent of Texas. Harper took over the Conservative Party in 2004 and became prime minister two years later on a platform that evoked Bush’s “compassionate conservatism.” In 2009, he quelled a Bush-esque Afghan-detainee abuse scandal by sending the parliament home to forestall further investigation. The Canadian economy weathered the financial crisis unusually well, thanks to strong banking regulations and booming oil sales to China, and in May 2011 Harper’s party won a majority for the first time. It has celebrated by veering rightward and doubling down on its oil bets.

Already in possession of the world’s second-largest oil reserves behind Saudi Arabia, Canada under Harper is aiming to more than double its output by 2035. Most of the new crude will come from the tar sands of northern Alberta, which are lousy with oil-rich bitumen. But extracting and refining that bitumen is lousy for the environment. It requires strip and open-pit mining, and the refining process is unusually energy-intensive. Producing one barrel of oil takes two tons of tar sands and several barrels of water.

Given that the Alberta tar sands already account for more carbon emissions than 145 entire nations, one would think Canada would have a hard time meeting international environmental standards. One would be right. Under a liberal government, the country was one of the first to sign on to the Kyoto Protocol in 1998. In 2002, even as Bush was gleefully thumbing his nose at the climate treaty, Canada ratified it, promising an ambitious 6 percent reduction from 1990’s carbon levels by 2012. Instead, emissions had risen 24 percent as of 2008. And in terms of energy consumption per capita, Canada is fourth in the world, 15 percent higher than the notoriously wasteful United States.

No worries. Last month Harper made Canada the first country to formally withdraw from the treaty, leaving it free to pollute as much as it sees fit. That has raised the hackles of environmental groups and other countries. When even China, the world leader in pollution, calls your environmental policies “regrettable,” you might be doing something wrong.

Far from being chastened by the outcry, the Canadian government has responded by circling the wagons and demonizing its critics. This month, Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver issued an open letter accusing “environmental and other radical groups” of delaying major pipeline projects and calling for a “quicker and more streamlined” public review process. “It is an urgent matter of Canada’s national interest,” he explained. Harper has voiced concerns that public hearings will be “hijacked” by environmental groups funded by “foreign money.” Not if Harper’s party members in the House of Commons can help it: They’re planning a “review” of environmental charities that many tar-sands opponents see as a bid to limit their ability to advocate against the oil business. And Harper’s administration is boosting spending on military jets and warships while laying off hundreds in the environmental department.

Meanwhile, Ezra Levant, a Bill O’Reilly-style TV host on a network that has been dubbed “Fox News North” is leading an effort to brand Canada’s tar sands as “ethical oil” and regularly accuses environmentalists of abetting terrorists in Iran and Saudi Arabia. The jingoism has reached comical proportions in recent months as Levant has fueled a popular backlash against Chiquita—yes, the banana company—after it announced a boycott of tar-sands oil. The American corporation, he asserted, was run by “anti-Canadian bigots.” He concluded one anti-Chiquita rant by telling the company’s vice president, Manuel Rodriguez, “chinga tu madre.”

Even oil-hungry America is looking askance at Canada’s tar sands these days. President Obama this week rejected the Keystone XL pipeline, which would have connected the two countries by pumping tons of tar-sands oil straight from Alberta to Texas. Harper, for his part, quickly pivoted to China, again touting Canada’s “national interest.” The pipeline he is now pushing would send the same oil to the ports of British Columbia, crossing aboriginal lands and forests that have historically been preserved. The prime minister has made it clear he won’t let those concerns stand in his way, telling the CBC, “Just because certain people in the United States would like to see Canada be one giant national park for the northern half of North America, I don't think that's part of what our review process is all about.”

With less than 4 percent of its GDP tied up in the oil industry, Canada is not dependent on oil to the same extent as Venezuela (12 percent) or Saudi Arabia (45 percent). Still, the Canadians’ increasing reliance on crude natural resources has economists on the lookout for symptoms of “Dutch Disease”—a phenomenon in which a natural resources boom strengthens a country’s currency, making its other exports more expensive and less competitive on the world market. Remember when buying stuff in Canada was cheap because of the weak loonie? No more. After hitting a low of 62 cents in 2002, the Canadian dollar is now worth essentially the same as a U.S. dollar. That’s great for the federal government’s coffers but rough on industries such as manufacturing, which have lost hundreds of thousands of jobs in recent years.
Advertisement

While we haven’t yet reached the point where Canadians are stitching the Stars and Stripes to their backpacks when they travel abroad, not all Canadians are buying into the rally-round-the-maple-leaf mentality. The loudest “petro-state” cries have come from within the country’s own borders. The website “Sorry, World,” in which a Canadian apologizes to the globe on his country’s behalf, also has some 24,000 likes on Facebook.

But Americans should think twice before attempting to reclaim the moral high ground from the country up north. Even without Keystone XL, America is by far the largest consumer of Canadian oil. Oh, and about that pipeline: President Obama’s rejection of Keystone XL is only as secure as his re-election. GOP front-runner Mitt Romney has called the decision “shocking,” and Newt Gingrich called it “stunningly stupid.” By 2013, the two North American countries could be on the same team again when it comes to oil. If so, it’ll be us against the world.

[styky]

Keystone XL oil pipeline battle has only just begun
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/ ... story.html

[katsung47]

don't you know these oil belong to China in secret deal?

703. War on Iran in February (1) (1/21/2012)

In last December I learned that my brother and sisters would have a trip to India and Dubai between Feb. 2 to Feb 15, 2012. Since my relatives used to be arranged for a trip when the Feds has a new plan, that means there will be a new framed case in February and it always comes with big events as distraction- false flag terror attack, war, natural disaster or all of them.

A news proved my allegation. It will be Iran war this time.

Russian military experts say the U.S. is likely to war against Iran in early February
Date:2012-01-17
http://www.9abc.net/index.php/archives/72360

Why does the Feds choose February as operation time? Because there was a president election in Taiwan on Jan 14. National Party competed with Democratic Progressive Party for that seat. National Party is pro-China while D.P.P. pushes for independence of Taiwan. Of course, Beijing wants to see the National Party to win the presidency of Taiwan.

On the other hand, China is a key component in war on Iran. China is a big customer of Iran. It shares 20% of exported oil of Iran. China opposed war on Iran for its own interest. So if US wants the Iran war, it must buy the agreement of China. The D.P.P. of Taiwan became the chip of the deal and was sacrificed in 1/14/2012 presidential election.

On 1/10, Treasury Secretary Geithner visited China to confirm the secret deal.

1/14, Payment confirmed

Taiwan's China-friendly president wins re-election
January 14, 2012 A.P.
|

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/01/14 ... e-election

1/15, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao started his trip to Saudi Arabia, Qatar, United A.E. (all are US allies) to pick up other payments from the secret deal.

China, Saudi Arabia and the New Oil Alliance - 16 January 2012
http://goldnews.bullionvault.com/china_oil_011620126

1/19, China confirms the deal to turn against Iran.

China Begins to Turn Against Iran

January 19, 2012 2:26 PM
During Premier Wen Jiabao’s visit to the Persian Gulf, he struck deals with a number of countries, including Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar, many of whom are worried by Iran’s nuclear ambitions. China, which has long been one of Iran’s only allies and a major customer for its oil exports, now seems to be turning its back on Tehran. From the Telegraph:

“China adamantly opposes Iran developing and possessing nuclear weapons,” [Wen] said.

China appears to have sent a message to Iran that it could not rely on Beijing’s unstinting support by reducing its imports of oil at a time when the US and Europe are promoting an embargo on the country.

The Washington Post reported that China trimmed its oil imports from Iran in January from a daily average of around 550,000 barrels to 285,000 barrels a day.

Chinese foreign policy experts said the statement demonstrated that Beijing would not allow its international position to end up beholden to Iran.

http://chinadigitaltimes.net/2012/01/ch ... inst-iran/

[styky]

katsung47 keep to you own fantasy threads.

[styky]

Key U.S. house panel advances Keystone pipeline plan


Roberta Rampton,Reuters

First posted: Tuesday, February 07, 2012 03:47 PM EST | Updated: Tuesday, February 07, 2012 08:02 PM EST
WASHINGTON - A plan to fast-track the stalled Keystone XL oil pipeline was passed by a key committee in the U.S. House of Representatives, as Republicans made yet another attempt to spur approval of the project that has become a major issue in the 2012 elections.

The bill would wrest decision-making on the pipeline from the Obama administration and hand it to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which would be compelled to issue approval permits quickly on the Canada-to-Texas project.

But the plan would need to clear several more congressional hurdles, including getting through Democratic opposition in the Senate, before it could land on President Barack Obama’s desk for approval.

In a decision last month that pleased environmental groups, Obama blocked TransCanada’s $7 billion project, citing the need for further review of its route as the line would have traversed sensitive lands and an aquifer in Nebraska.

Republicans have made the pipeline a symbol of what they believe are unnecessary regulations that are stifling job creation and energy production in the United States.

On Tuesday, the House Energy and Commerce Committee voted 33-20 to send its Keystone bill to the full House, where it will likely become part of a highway and infrastructure funding bill that House Speaker John Boehner wants to see passed this month.

Republicans also have not ruled out trying to attach a Keystone provision to must-pass payroll tax-cut legislation.

“We’re going to use all options, so we’ll see,” said Fred Upton, the Republican chair of the energy committee, who is also part of a joint Senate-House conference panel working on the payroll tax-cut compromise.

GLUT IN MIDWEST

The latest Keystone debate comes as a glut of crude oil in the U.S. Midwest widens the discount between what refiners pay for oil around the key delivery point of Cushing, Oklahoma, compared to the price paid by refiners on U.S. coasts and the rest of the world.

Meanwhile, Canadian production is surging on expanding output from the oilsands. With exports to the United States up 34 percent year-over-year, existing pipeline capacity is full.

The lack of pipeline space has pushed the discount between Canadian crude and benchmark prices to multi-year lows, eating into the profits of the Canadian oil industry, including its two largest producers, Suncor Energy Inc and Canadian Natural Resources Ltd.

Canadian oil producers are desperately looking for alternative markets in Asia and elsewhere, though it will be years before any new export lines can be built.

Canada’s Prime Minister Stephen Harper is leading a large, high-level trade mission to Beijing this week, and told Reuters that Canada will focus on exporting oil to China even if the U.S. decision on Keystone is reversed.

KEYSTONE ROUTE IN SENATE UNCLEAR

Republicans in the Democratic-controlled Senate also are trying to resurrect a quick start for the pipeline, but have not yet determined a strategy for advancing legislation.

On Tuesday, Republican Senator Orrin Hatch withdrew a proposal to link Keystone to the Senate’s highway funding bill.

“It is absolutely tragic that the prime minister of Canada is now negotiating with the Chinese to take their oil because we’re too stupid to allow a pipeline to go through,” Hatch said at a Senate Finance Committee hearing.

Max Baucus, the Democratic chairman of the powerful panel, convinced Hatch to withdraw his measure.

“The inclusion of Keystone would take down the bill,” Baucus said, although he noted he strongly supports the pipeline.

LAWSUITS AHEAD?

On Tuesday, House Democrats tried but failed to amend the bill to block exports of oil and refined fuels from the pipeline, and to bar TransCanada from having the ability to expropriate land for the pipeline from private owners.

Also defeated was a proposal to postpone action on the pipeline pending results of a study, expected sometime in 2013, on whether pipelines carrying petroleum from Canada’s oilsands are at greater risk for spills than those carrying other types of crude.

John Dingell, a Democrat from Michigan who supports the pipeline, argued the authority to approve the line should remain with the president rather than being fast-tracked by Congress.

Dingell said he worries environmental groups would tie up the pipeline with lawsuits if the Republican plan goes ahead.

“It’s going to infuriate the environmentalists who are going to be on this like a duck on a June bug,” Dingell said.

The Natural Resources Defense Council panned the bill, saying it attempted to “jam” the project ahead in a rush.

“We hope the Senate will use common sense and avoid trying to undermine proper review using politically motivated legislative maneuvers,” said Frances Beinecke, president of the group, in a statement.

But Lee Terry, a Republican from Nebraska, said the Obama administration has dragged out the process for too long, making it essential for Congress to take charge.

“It is the president that made this a political football,” Terry said.

http://www.torontosun.com/2012/02/07/ke ... eline-plan