BurnetAggie99 said:

---

Back to $4 dollar gas and losing our energy independence

---

Tony Franklins Other Shoe said:

---

chimpanzee said:

---

Chetos said:

---

The article conflates shale w keystone. Isn't keystone sole purpose to move Canadian tar-sand oil?

Edit- just read on wiki that it picks up some Bakken in Montana...but I'm guessing it's mostly going to be dilbit...and I'm still guessing the reporter didn't even do that much research . Eitherway, there's a political target back on O&G.

---

It was supposed to move heavy crude out of Alberta to refineries that can handle it without massively retooling, displacing heavy crude from less friendly places. Alberta is constrained for liquids export capacity, primarily due to growth in oil sands production.

Shale/fracking/subsurface tech has increased production so much domestically that people aren't taking new infrastructure seriously. People don't appreciate how cheap oil and gas are now, and are willing to give up future options because they don't see an upside to them. We don't have to sweat gasoline prices tripling because some nutter invaded his neighbors anymore.

We're a couple of badly timed outages on top of a big winter storm away from having major issues in certain regions. I'm afraid that is what it will take for people to see the value in having reliable energy infrastructure.

The anti-fossil fuel lobby has done a great job with their messaging, giving people some reason to feel like they are morally righteous for opposing carbon dioxide while slowly taking away the entire world's standard of living and putting the proceeds directly into their greenwashed pockets. Look at Elon Musk. Richest guy in the world depending on the day. His regulatory credit revenue exceeds his net income (when he manages to not have a net loss) selling products that the end user gets a tax credit for buying. Every wind and solar developer is doing the same thing, only worse.

When they cry "crisis" and then put in place 30 year plans to "solve" it, (1) it was never a crisis to begin with and (2) watch the plan as it morphs into an ecosystem of grifters that leech value out of whatever actual productive pursuits are allowed to remain as deadlines are pushed back and standards are revised.

---

How many of y'all did it take to type in that eloquent and well thought out message?

Seriously. Very good post.

---

JustPanda said:

---

Keystone was a pipeline w no funcional reason to be built plus it was a Canadian oil sands play - it was BAD for TX and US producers.

Dakota Access is the big one. If they kill DA, the Bakken is straight ****ed.

---

third coast.. said:

---

Chimpanzee is probably top 3 posters on this entire website.

---

chimpanzee said:

---

Chetos said:

---

The article conflates shale w keystone. Isn't keystone sole purpose to move Canadian tar-sand oil?

Edit- just read on wiki that it picks up some Bakken in Montana...but I'm guessing it's mostly going to be dilbit...and I'm still guessing the reporter didn't even do that much research . Eitherway, there's a political target back on O&G.

---

It was supposed to move heavy crude out of Alberta to refineries that can handle it without massively retooling, displacing heavy crude from less friendly places. Alberta is constrained for liquids export capacity, primarily due to growth in oil sands production.

Shale/fracking/subsurface tech has increased production so much domestically that people aren't taking new infrastructure seriously. People don't appreciate how cheap oil and gas are now, and are willing to give up future options because they don't see an upside to them. We don't have to sweat gasoline prices tripling because some nutter invaded his neighbors anymore.

We're a couple of badly timed outages on top of a big winter storm away from having major issues in certain regions. I'm afraid that is what it will take for people to see the value in having reliable energy infrastructure.

The anti-fossil fuel lobby has done a great job with their messaging, giving people some reason to feel like they are morally righteous for opposing carbon dioxide while slowly taking away the entire world's standard of living and putting the proceeds directly into their greenwashed pockets. Look at Elon Musk. Richest guy in the world depending on the day. His regulatory credit revenue exceeds his net income (when he manages to not have a net loss) selling products that the end user gets a tax credit for buying. Every wind and solar developer is doing the same thing, only worse.

When they cry "crisis" and then put in place 30 year plans to "solve" it, (1) it was never a crisis to begin with and (2) watch the plan as it morphs into an ecosystem of grifters that leech value out of whatever actual productive pursuits are allowed to remain as deadlines are pushed back and standards are revised.

---

Fightin_Aggie said:

---

Govt will have the krap sued out of them. No due process or legal reason to cancel the permit. Very 3rd world look

---

Sid Farkas said:

---

BurnetAggie99 said:

---

Back to $4 dollar gas and losing our energy independence

---

Four dollar gas will be an impossible dream for middle class Californians who have to drive 50 miles to and from work everyday.

But the democrats are the party who care more about the middle class

---

Muy said:

---

It's okay guys. With $15 mandatory minimum wage, everyone will be rich beyond their wildest dreams. Sure, someone may lose their job and benefits and have to drive further away on $4 gas, making it literally not worth working in the first place, but then we'l be just giving them free money to purchase higher priced products.

Yay America!

---

JustPanda said:

---

Keystone was a pipeline w no funcional reason to be built plus it was a Canadian oil sands play - it was BAD for TX and US producers.

Dakota Access is the big one. If they kill DA, the Bakken is straight ****ed.

---

oh no said:

---

Bakken is North Dakota
Marcellus is Penn

---

JustPanda said:

---

Keystone was a pipeline w no funcional reason to be built plus it was a Canadian oil sands play - it was BAD for TX and US producers.

Dakota Access is the big one. If they kill DA, the Bakken is straight ****ed.

---

Cassius said:

---

JustPanda said:

---

Keystone was a pipeline w no funcional reason to be built plus it was a Canadian oil sands play - it was BAD for TX and US producers.

Dakota Access is the big one. If they kill DA, the Bakken is straight ****ed.

---

Companies don't build pipelines for no functional reason. That's just dumb. That oil is getting refined anyway by China. It its getting refined anyway, how does refining it somewhere else hurt producers?! It just takes lot more energy to do that. Texas refineries would have been processing it, which means more jobs, deliveries, commerce, etc.. in Texas.

---

WHOOP!'91 said:

---

Cassius said:

---

JustPanda said:

---

Keystone was a pipeline w no funcional reason to be built plus it was a Canadian oil sands play - it was BAD for TX and US producers.

Dakota Access is the big one. If they kill DA, the Bakken is straight ****ed.

---

Companies don't build pipelines for no functional reason. That's just dumb. That oil is getting refined anyway by China. It its getting refined anyway, how does refining it somewhere else hurt producers?! It just takes lot more energy to do that. Texas refineries would have been processing it, which means more jobs, deliveries, commerce, etc.. in Texas.

---

...not to mention cleaner refining under US environmental laws. I shudder to think about the pollution and effluent from a Chinese refinery.

---

oh no said:

---

Definitely an America Last initiative going on starting day 1. Keystone cancelled, border wall stopped, Paris accord rejoined. America sending a message that we don't want jobs, we want to depend on others for energy, and we want to give our money to the world while hurting ourselves.

---