Obama supposedly to kill Keystone XL in August, Anonymous leak suggests it's retaliation for Harper spying on US Gov

[thejazz97]

Is no one concerned about how Anonymous is getting away with this? They are taking the feds hostage here. This is unacceptable. They need to be taken out. It does not matter if you agree with Anonymous or Harper, they are acting to the definition of terrorists and need to be dealt with.

Except they're the people's champion rn. Anyone who does it looks bad and/or like they're hiding something they don't want found.

[Dittohead]

Obama is not our friend. He is Irans friend.

[LaBamba]

People are mad about this? This is great news the pipeline is a horrendous idea that will only cause the alberta tar sands to become more developed when we should be moving away from our reliance on oil. Really glad Obama see's this unlike our current "Prime Minister"

So you are saying you would sooner receive oil from the Middle East?

Clueless.

The dirtiest Oil is that of the Middle East. Terrorist organizations depend on oil to fund their military campaigns. Over the past century much blood has been shed for the oil over there. It is the main source of the worlds corruption.

The Keystone pipeline would be one step closer to energy independence. If North America produced its own oil and opened up international exportation, OPEC would die. WTI and Canadian select would trade on par or greater than Brent.

WTI would no longer be a volatile commodity. No wars or delays in shipment to refineries, just steady, sustained, self sufficient energy for everyone to enjoy.

As for environmental impact. For any new resource extracting method, time cures all inefficienties. The carbon footprint of the oilsands will be engineered smaller over time. If you think the energy producers don't care about environmental impact you are wrong. They want this oil to be cleaner so things like this pipeline are approved to open up the market. I would say it is their top priority today.

I know it's hard for everyone to realize this in Vancouver where your only insight into how this oil is produced is from Netflix documentaries. It has already jumped leaps and bounds in environmental efficiency and is continuing to improve as time passes.

I'll take Canadian Select in my gas tank, plastic, or lubrication any day over the blood stained oil of OPEC.

[Mr. Ambien]

So you are saying you would sooner receive oil from the Middle East?

Clueless.

The dirtiest Oil is that of the Middle East. Terrorist organizations depend on oil to fund their military campaigns. Over the past century much blood has been shed for the oil over there. It is the main source of the worlds corruption.

The Keystone pipeline would be one step closer to energy independence. If North America produced its own oil and opened up international exportation, OPEC would die. WTI and Canadian select would trade on par or greater than Brent.

WTI would no longer be a volatile commodity. No wars or delays in shipment to refineries, just steady, sustained, self sufficient energy for everyone to enjoy.

As for environmental impact. For any new resource extracting method, time cures all inefficienties. The carbon footprint of the oilsands will be engineered smaller over time. If you think the energy producers don't care about environmental impact you are wrong. They want this oil to be cleaner so things like this pipeline are approved to open up the market. I would say it is their top priority today.

I know it's hard for everyone to realize this in Vancouver where your only insight into how this oil is produced is from Netflix documentaries. It has already jumped leaps and bounds in environmental efficiency and is continuing to improve as time passes.

I'll take Canadian Select in my gas tank, plastic, or lubrication any day over the blood stained oil of OPEC.

Apparently the Canadian economy doesn't suck enough for some people.. and I venture those people likely don't have jobs anyways.

[Violator]

Apparently the Canadian economy doesn't suck enough for some people.. and I venture those people likely don't have jobs anyways.

Or own vehicles and probably live in the woods eating twigs and grass.Then in the winter use mud to keep themselves warm.

[Mr. Ambien]

Or own vehicles and probably live in the woods eating twigs and grass.Then in the winter use mud to keep themselves warm.

Nice try, bud. Everyone knows we live in igloos already.

[Kragar]

Nice try, bud. Everyone knows we live in igloos already.

It blows my mind down here how many people still think that there is snow right across the border, and crap like that. Any time I mention going back to Vancouver for a visit, regardless of the time of year, it rarely fails to have someone ask me how cold it will be. And if it is winter time, then there is such shock if I tell them there was no snow.

[SamJamIam]

Apparently the Canadian economy doesn't suck enough for some people.. and I venture those people likely don't have jobs anyways.

There is real long term benefit to moving away from oil extraction as a major source of economic activity. Abandoning the oil sands completely is a bad decision from a fuel/economic security standpoint, but diversifying the economy to have significant tech and manufacturing sectors (especially those that aren't run by American companies like GM) would give us much better quality of living for decades. What we need to do is continue to carve out sustainable niches the US can't fill, not just send resources south until we have nothing left.

[Mr. Ambien]

There is real long term benefit to moving away from oil extraction as a major source of economic activity. Abandoning the oil sands completely is a bad decision from a fuel/economic security standpoint, but diversifying the economy to have significant tech and manufacturing sectors (especially those that aren't run by American companies like GM) would give us much better quality of living for decades. What we need to do is continue to carve out sustainable niches the US can't fill, not just send resources south until we have nothing left.

No doubt we should be diversifying our economy and investing in other things. The reliance upon oil has also been part of the culprit of this -- can't put your eggs in one basket. OTOH, the other post wishing we just gut oil is just as short sighted and obtuse as the AB NDP trying to skyrocket the min wage while jobs are being cut by the thousands.

It blows my mind down here how many people still think that there is snow right across the border, and crap like that. Any time I mention going back to Vancouver for a visit, regardless of the time of year, it rarely fails to have someone ask me how cold it will be. And if it is winter time, then there is such shock if I tell them there was no snow.

That's cool, whenever I tell people here in Calgary that I moved from California (even though I technically moved from two other places before that), they go "why?!?" like California is some great place to live.

[LaBamba]

There is real long term benefit to moving away from oil extraction as a major source of economic activity. Abandoning the oil sands completely is a bad decision from a fuel/economic security standpoint, but diversifying the economy to have significant tech and manufacturing sectors (especially those that aren't run by American companies like GM) would give us much better quality of living for decades. What we need to do is continue to carve out sustainable niches the US can't fill, not just send resources south until we have nothing left.

If we domesticated the origin of our oil consumption and implemented clean energy to take some of the pressure off our demand growth we would be in an idea situation.

This will never happen with OPEC on this earth.

It doesn't take a conspiracy theorist to believe that OPEC is drowning the momentum of energy efficiency with there refusal to cut oil production.

With lower prices, fuel demand has surged over 7% year over year enticing consumers to buy less fuel efficient vehicles while abandoning communal transportation.

They are flooding the world with oil to inhibit North American oil production by driving down prices and forcing shale drillers and Oilsand producers into starvation.

They hope to erase every step we have taken towards energy independence and recapture the market share they have lost.

This keystone pipeline bill is conveniently timed with the fall of oil. I'm not even sure how much of this oil glut really exists.

[Lancaster]

Obama is probably against ending oil dependency from the Saudis.

Kuwait and Saudi Arabia are literally conducting economic war against the United States by manipulating oil prices in an attempt to ruin the oil companies operating at the Bakkens, Eagle Ford, Permanians, etc. and the USA just does nothing.

Building the XL pipeline will diminish the influence of the Middle East oil even more.... but nope, it won't happen either.

[SamJamIam]

If we domesticated the origin of our oil consumption and implemented clean energy to take some of the pressure off our demand growth we would be in an idea situation.

This will never happen with OPEC on this earth.

It doesn't take a conspiracy theorist to believe that OPEC is drowning the momentum of energy efficiency with there refusal to cut oil production.

With lower prices, fuel demand has surged over 7% year over year enticing consumers to buy less fuel efficient vehicles while abandoning communal transportation.

They are flooding the world with oil to inhibit North American oil production by driving down prices and forcing shale drillers and Oilsand producers into starvation.

They hope to erase every step we have taken towards energy independence and recapture the market share they have lost.

This keystone pipeline bill is conveniently timed with the fall of oil. I'm not even sure how much of this oil glut really exists.

A few things I disagree with given that I used to run a biofuels company:

The EPA regulations haven't changed despite the lower oil prices. Auto manufacturers still have to reach some pretty lofty mileage targets for their product lines which is why a Ford F150 now has better mileage than a Civic from the last decade did. There is also a lot of fear among consumers that gas prices will shoot back up, so there hasn't been nearly the explosion in gas demand that was expected. Gas stations are also charging a higher margin on fuel than they did previously. Prices at the pump didn't drop nearly as much as the cost of a barrel which means lower consumption as well.

Also electricity generation isn't terribly tied to oil and what OPEC does. That is more dependent on coal. Right now there is actually a boom in cheap coal since developed nations and China have been abandoning it for other power sources. As a result, coal is abundant and developing countries have started investing in coal plants. But for most of the world's economic activity, the drive is toward renewables with some pretty nice subsidies for wind, and solar to a lesser extent. It was recently in the news that Denmark generated 130% of its monthly electricity needs from wind alone. Not the norm of course, but it shows just how heavily we are investing in these technologies.

As far as OPEC's motivations, I wouldn't be so sure that they are fighting the US with their price drops. In fact, I would argue the US and Saudi Arabia are waging economic war on Russia. Russia's currency has collapsed as a result of oil's price drop and the US shale oil producers are actually doing great. When the price of oil dropped, drilled wells were just capped and left until the price rose enough to make extraction worthwhile. The wells that were still feasible at lower prices kept pumping. It means that shale producers are using half as many rigs to pump out more oil than when it was 100 a barrel. Let's also not forget that the US has been experiencing some impressive growth as a result of cheaper gas and are looking at hiking interest rates soon to curb inflation. So this has all been gravy for the US, and Saudis are likely happy to help for future considerations. It just sucks for Russia (and hey, screw them) and to a lesser extent, for us.

[arowind]

No, just means Obama wants oil from countries like...oh...Saudi Arabia or Iran?

We will move away from our reliance on oil when it basically drys up.

Edit: Oh, guess what buttercup - the alternatives are worse - specially the one where it goes via tanker ships down the Eastern Seaboard.

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/keystone-xl-alternative-pipelines-18821

Edit 2: For all you who want to "move away" from Oil - put your money where your mouths are and stop using the following partial list of products that use oil to make them:

http://www-tc.pbs.org/independentlens/classroom/wwo/petroleum.pdf

Also, better stop any form of transportation as well - even electric cars use oil.

You are everything that is wrong with society and your arguments are not well thought out. The Tar sands are just about the worst place to get oil from. We should not be extracting from there at all. Scientific studies have shown that humans can only use about 60% of earth oil supply without causing irreparable and serious damage to our climate. That does not mean however that we have to stop using oil all together, it is far to important for that. However, we can limit are reliance on it and maybe not take it from the tar sands where you need to pump it out in the least environmentally friendly possible, but of course that would effect your money which is much more important to the narrow minded.

[Mr. Ambien]

You are everything that is wrong with society and your arguments are not well thought out. The Tar sands are just about the worst place to get oil from. We should not be extracting from there at all. Scientific studies have shown that humans can only use about 60% of earth oil supply without causing irreparable and serious damage to our climate. That does not mean however that we have to stop using oil all together, it is far to important for that. However, we can limit are reliance on it and maybe not take it from the tar sands where you need to pump it out in the least environmentally friendly possible, but of course that would effect your money which is much more important to the narrow minded.

[LaBamba]

A few things I disagree with given that I used to run a biofuels company:

the US shale oil producers are actually doing great. When the price of oil dropped, drilled wells were just capped and left until the price rose enough to make extraction worthwhile. The wells that were still feasible at lower prices kept pumping. It means that shale producers are using half as many rigs to pump out more oil than when it was 100 a barrel.

I am a drilling consultant, this is basically all I know, so I can tell you with great certainly that this is a big misconception.

The NA rig count peaked at +\- 1,600 rigs. The rig count started to plummet around January. "Tight oil" has a very short life cycle in comparison to a conventional well. Tight oil wells are very heavily front loaded. The wells that are the most economic are the ones that can pay themselves off the quickest. After roughly a year they deplete anywhere from 50-80%. You can look that up.

So let's go back to the rig count, if the rig count started to drop in January and tight oil starts to deplete after a year, when would you say we will see the real effects of low oil on US shale producers production? I'd say it starts to fall off a cliff around January 2016.

I know first hand that this entire tight hole revolution is one big ponzi that was going to be exposed regardless of the oil price. Drilling must increase to maintain production. That is not and will never be sustainable. No matter what technology they come up with it will never make the rock give oil longer.

The half as many rigs are indeed still drilling wells today that are more economic but do people seriously think they are going to be able to pick up the slack of a 50-80% depletion rate and a 60% reduction in drilling? I would also say a large % of those wells are commitment wells or expiring lease holds. Wells they are forced to drill but don't complete.

The only reason these companies are pumping oil is because they have no choice. Some are leverged 5-1 debt to cash flow and have major commitments to creditors. If they stop production they have no money to pay creditors. Most of them are hedged, once this starts to expire more pressure will be applied.

OPEC has shale oil on its knees, trust me, I'm living it.

[Mr. Ambien]

I am a drilling consultant, this is basically all I know, so I can tell you with great certainly that this is a big misconception.

The NA rig count peaked at +\- 1,600 rigs. The rig count started to plummet around January. "Tight oil" has a very short life cycle in comparison to a conventional well. Tight oil wells are very heavily front loaded. The wells that are the most economic are the ones that can pay themselves off the quickest. After roughly a year they deplete anywhere from 50-80%. You can look that up.

So let's go back to the rig count, if the rig count started to drop in January and tight oil starts to deplete after a year, when would you say we will see the real effects of low oil on US shale producers production? I'd say it starts to fall off a cliff around January 2016.

I know first hand that this entire tight hole revolution is one big ponzi that was going to be exposed regardless of the oil price. Drilling must increase to maintain production. That is not and will never be sustainable. No matter what technology they come up with it will never make the rock give oil longer.

The half as many rigs are indeed still drilling wells today that are more economic but do people seriously think they are going to be able to pick up the slack of a 50-80% depletion rate and a 60% reduction in drilling? I would also say a large % of those wells are commitment wells or expiring lease holds. Wells they are forced to drill but don't complete.

The only reason these companies are pumping oil is because they have no choice. Some are leverged 5-1 debt to cash flow and have major commitments to creditors. If they stop production they have no money to pay creditors. Most of them are hedged, once this starts to expire more pressure will be applied.

OPEC has shale oil on its knees, trust me, I'm living it.

Much of what we sell are to the oil sands -- so pretty much every job in the industry is volatile. I wouldn't be surprised if our office went kaput by the end of the year. **** happens.

[LaBamba]

You are everything that is wrong with society and your arguments are not well thought out. The Tar sands are just about the worst place to get oil from. We should not be extracting from there at all. Scientific studies have shown that humans can only use about 60% of earth oil supply without causing irreparable and serious damage to our climate. That does not mean however that we have to stop using oil all together, it is far to important for that. However, we can limit are reliance on it and maybe not take it from the tar sands where you need to pump it out in the least environmentally friendly possible, but of course that would effect your money which is much more important to the narrow minded.

Tell me more about the oilsands since you appear to know so much about it.

Since you claim that the Oil Sands is about the worst place you can get oil from, give me some examples of some better places to get oil?

Just for starters the world needs 95,000,000 bbl of oil a day. Canada produces around 4,000,000 bbl so you have a lot of places to pick from. And remember, it has to be profitable at $50/bbl WTI

[LaBamba]

Much of what we sell are to the oil sands -- so pretty much every job in the industry is volatile. I wouldn't be surprised if our office went kaput by the end of the year. **** happens.

Correct, we sell Canadian select, and the liquids we recover from the montney and duverney's is shipped to Ft Mac to thin out the bitumen so it can be pumped and we can avoid the use of satanic OPEC oil for the world and God to enjoy.

[Heretic]

You are everything that is wrong with society and your arguments are not well thought out. The Tar sands are just about the worst place to get oil from. We should not be extracting from there at all. Scientific studies have shown that humans can only use about 60% of earth oil supply without causing irreparable and serious damage to our climate. That does not mean however that we have to stop using oil all together, it is far to important for that. However, we can limit are reliance on it and maybe not take it from the tar sands where you need to pump it out in the least environmentally friendly possible, but of course that would effect your money which is much more important to the narrow minded.

Wow.

I guess you don't have a mirror in your home.

Did I say the tar sands were the best place to get oil from?

[arowind]

Tell me more about the oilsands since you appear to know so much about it.

Since you claim that the Oil Sands is about the worst place you can get oil from, give me some examples of some better places to get oil?

Just for starters the world needs 95,000,000 bbl of oil a day. Canada produces around 4,000,000 bbl so you have a lot of places to pick from. And remember, it has to be profitable at $50/bbl WTI

I'm not pretending there is an end all be all solution. Either way I am far to busy to create a sound and fact checked argument, for which the internet is so fond of ignoring, for a bunch of internet troll who will likely response nonsensically. I suggest if you want to get more educated that you do some research on your own. Here is a great video that i watched in my 4th year conservation biology class.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkwoRivP17A