Trump to sign orders reviving pipeline projects, sources say - Polidicks

[QUOTE]President Trump plans to sign executive orders reviving the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines, which had been stalled under the Obama administration, sources tell Fox News. The moves had been widely expected, as Trump blasted his predecessor for effectively blocking the projects amid environmental and other concerns. While the Canada-to-Texas Keystone project was at the center of a heated debate for years until the Obama administration rejected a key permit in November 2015, the Dakota pipeline more recently became the subject of fierce protests until the Army Corps of Engineers in December blocked construction of a controversial segment. The company behind the Keystone XL project, TransCanada, has not yet reapplied for a pipeline permit, after having withdrawn its request under the Obama administration. The expected moves come as Trump makes the economy and jobs the centerpiece of his administration’s first week in office.[/QUOTE] [URL="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/01/24/trump-to-sign-orders-reviving-pipeline-projects-sources-say.html"]Source[/URL]

this'll be interesting.

I'm very happy that Trump is giving extra thought to the Keystone XL pipeline; It will benefit the whole of Canada, and especially our poorly performing oil sector in Alberta.

Can't wait for more environment-destroying oil spills! Looks like DAPL is getting their ROI. OH HOW PERFECTLY TIMED! [URL="http://reuters.com/article/idUSKBN1572UJ"]Canada oil pipeline spills 200,000 liters on aboriginal land[/URL]

[QUOTE=Llamaguy;51719868]Can't wait for more environment-destroying oil spills! Looks like DAPL is getting their ROI.[/QUOTE] Pipelines should be safer than rail, no?

[QUOTE=chernisreal?;51719883]Pipelines should be safer than rail, no?[/QUOTE] Refer to my edited post.

[QUOTE=Llamaguy;51719884]Refer to my edited post.[/QUOTE] I bet if you compare that disaster to the amount of rail related petroleum incidents in Canada you'll be surprised. Many more lives have been taken from rail accidents in recent history in Canada. Most notably in Quebec.

[QUOTE=chernisreal?;51719908]I bet if you compare that disaster to the amount of rail related petroleum incidents in Canada you'll be surprised. Many more lives have been taken from rail accidents in recent history in Canada. Most notably in Quebec.[/QUOTE] Not the point. We're going to get these leaks in the United States on reservations and elsewhere.

[QUOTE=chernisreal?;51719908]I bet if you compare that disaster to the amount of rail related petroleum incidents in Canada you'll be surprised. Many more lives have been taken from rail accidents in recent history in Canada. Most notably in Quebec.[/QUOTE] Maybe; maybe not. Pipelines transport way more in quantity. So a disaster would be worse.

[QUOTE=Aide;51719941]Maybe; maybe not. Pipelines transport way more in quantity. So a disaster would be worse.[/QUOTE] Less people would die though.

[QUOTE=chernisreal?;51719946]Less people would die though.[/QUOTE] People rely on the environment...

[QUOTE=Llamaguy;51719952]People rely on the environment...[/QUOTE] People also rely on not getting blown up in rail accidents? I think Canada's economic gain in times of crisis is more important than some far off heresy about people getting killed by pipelines.

Actually, oil pipelines are significantly less safer than rail travel when it comes to transporting oil [I]in theory[/I] However, since CSX is a shitty third world railroad who has a wreck every week it ends up balancing things out

[QUOTE=chernisreal?;51719955]People also rely on not getting blown up in rail accidents? I think Canada's economic gain in times of crisis is more important than some far off heresy about people getting killed by pipelines.[/QUOTE] That's a very short-sighted take on this. Oil spills have long term damage to the environment, and harms local flora and fauna.

[QUOTE=Llamaguy;51719974]That's a very short-sighted take on this. Oil spills have long term damage to the environment, and harms local flora and fauna.[/QUOTE] People arent going to give up lively hood's for the environment until there is a practical alternative.

Couldn't give a shit about Canada's oil problems when the pipeline is on American soil.

[QUOTE=Code3Response;51719993]Couldn't give a shit about Canada's oil problems when the pipeline is on American soil.[/QUOTE] That's exactly the point.

[QUOTE=Code3Response;51719993]Couldn't give a shit about Canada's oil problems when the pipeline is on American soil.[/QUOTE] Luckily, somebody in the whitehouse apparently cares.

[QUOTE=chernisreal?;51720002]Luckily, somebody in the whitehouse apparently cares.[/QUOTE] Cares about special interests, not the people.

[QUOTE=mcgrath618;51719961]Actually, oil pipelines are significantly less safer than rail travel when it comes to transporting oil [I]in theory[/I] However, since CSX is a shitty third world railroad who has a wreck every week it ends up balancing things out[/QUOTE] CSX is actually an acronym for Crash, Sizzle, and eXplode.

[QUOTE=chernisreal?;51720002]Luckily, somebody in the whitehouse apparently cares.[/QUOTE] I'm sure Trump's thinking of helping out poor Canada when he signs executive orders that benefit rich Americans.

[QUOTE=New Cidem;51720050]I'm sure Trump's thinking of helping out poor Canada when he signs executive orders that benefit rich Americans.[/QUOTE] His slogan was "Make America Great Again", not "Make Canada Great Again".

It still mainly helps Canada.

I'm all for helping Canada, and especially Alberta, but building oil pipelines over native reserves and natural water sources is not the way to go. Alberta needs to get with the times and move away from its oil dependency if we want our economy back. Statistically yes, pipelines are safer. But potentially, they can lead to environmental disaster when one leaks. It's not worth the risk.

As long as it doesn't cross over my province where I'm living, i'm fine.

I hope NoDAPL is ready for a four year protest.

Alberta deserves everything it gets if oil slump kills the province at this point. It's called economic diversity and they've had plenty of time to fix their problems. All your money in one source is beyond retarded, but sticking by it when faced with the gripping reality of your bad decisions is worse.

I would be fine with the piplken as long as it didn't infring on vulnerable ecosystems and ester reserves.

[QUOTE=Whitefox08;51720179]I would be fine with the piplken as long as it didn't infring on vulnerable ecosystems and ester reserves.[/QUOTE] No no, see, it's not a proper pipe line if it doesn't cross the ecosystems of endangered species, nature reserves and multiple water tables/sources of drinking water for thousands of people minimum. Planning it out otherwise lowers our projected profit by as much as 2% and that's just not okay.

[QUOTE=chernisreal?;51719883]Pipelines should be safer than rail, no?[/QUOTE] howabout we ignore the oil thats in unnessicarily dangerous places to begin with, we have plenty of oil elsewhere even without importing it also look at the route of dakota access, because they dodged an enviromental review using an arcane set of loopholes, they criss crossed rivers like a few hundred times instead of heading east out of the oilfield like they should have the thing litterally goes west to endup ultimately curving back east