Looks like (according to Auntie Beeb) the pipeline plan has been rejected.


Good thing or Bad thing? Discuss...

Until after the election I guess.

Now there's a surprise

It's certainly a good day for the Saudis.

The USA consumes 15 million barrels of oil PER DAY. Of this, 11 million are imported. Basically, nearly 75% of value of the USA's oil requirements are paid out to foreign countries every day, at prices which are only going one way.

I'm not an apologist for Keystone - I know nothing about the real details of it - but it is going to allow the USA to import almost 1 million bpd... that's nearly 7% of its daily requirement... from a source that doesn't need expensive military 'persuasion'.

I honestly think most North Americans really believe that there is such a thing as 'clean, wholesome oil'.

and they'd make it out of corn if they could.....

I think the blocking of the pipe is a bad idea

My rational is that a pipe is going to be much more environmental friendly in the long run than tankers by sea or by land.
And at the present rate of consumption we are going to consume that fuel regardless of where it comes from..

I think it reeks of NIMBY ism

My understanding is that its not really the pipeline itself that is of major environmental concern (although a spill would be bad), its the amount of energy and greenhouse gas emmisions it takes to generate the oilsands oil within it...

Wait until the Gulf entrance is shut by the Iranians, I suspect they will change their minds, it is not very forward thinking. Does anyone know what the oil and gas reserves off australia north coast amount too? I suspose that will take a while to answer without wikipedia. The US is getting very cosy with that lot. fletch.

Utter small-brained hypocrisy from the Land of the Hummer and the Escalade and the 5,000ft2 McMansion.

The Chinese have got much of Australian production nicely sewn up thank you very much.

Wikipedea still works fine for me, I just click on googles "cached" page and its all there

I read somewhere that if you factor in the cost of the US presence in the middle east then the real cost per barrel of oil is around $400/$500. I'm not sure if this is true or not, but it seems credible to me.

Not much oil, loads of Gas though. Still can't get Wiki

How about this, pump all the gas and oil we can get, burn it and increase the global temp by 10 degrees, result - sea level 60 meters higher, Canada much warmer, much of the worlds war mongers under water and canada will still have more than enough land. Ridiculous I know, but we could see this in 50 years time! Anyone looking for a reason to move to Canada from UK? You could have a worse reason than this. fletch.

for me that is a point worth considering , but to counter that not building the pipe won't stop production, and if the pipe was built then the investment in some of the newer cleaner more efficient technology would likely follow

Its not like global warming will produce a "biblical" type flood to cleanse us of the "evil doers", they will have plenty of time to try and crowd into the available dry land, and monger war in the process.

All thats going to happen is that many people will starve, conflicts over water rights will erupt, wars will start, the US will invade Canada due to the fresh water lakes, and I may end up with waterfront property. Oh, and it will suck to be a polar bear.

The yanks are just playing political ping pong with this one. The way they conduct their legislation is combine all kinds of disparate and somewhat unrelated policy initiatives into a single package. That way if you want your thing passed, you got to vote for mine. Its also why their presidents when in power, clamour for a line-veto, which they'll never get. This is more of the same bollox, "you want the pipeline then support my tax cuts." It'll blow over when they move onto a more emotive issue.