• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump to approve railroad permit to connect Alaska with the lower-48

Glitch

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 3, 2019
Messages
7,633
Reaction score
2,720
Location
Alaska (61.5°N, -149°W)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
From your link:


So he finally says "yes" right before the election?

You people keep falling for the con.
It is the "yes" that matters. We've been trying to open the 1002 Area of ANWR since the 1990s, and Trump was the only President to accomplish that for Alaska. Now he has approved the A2A project which will certainly improve Alaska's economy in the future.

I didn't vote for Trump in 2016, and I won't be voting for him in 2020. I never vote for anti-American leftist filth, regardless of the political party they happen to be registered with at the time. However, Trump has done more for Alaska than any President since Nixon gave his presidential approval to begin the trans-Alaska pipeline project in 1973.
 

Grand Mal

Question authority
DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2013
Messages
33,115
Reaction score
16,409
Location
on an island off the left coast of Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
It is the "yes" that matters. We've been trying to open the 1002 Area of ANWR since the 1990s, and Trump was the only President to accomplish that for Alaska. Now he has approved the A2A project which will certainly improve Alaska's economy in the future.

I didn't vote for Trump in 2016, and I won't be voting for him in 2020. I never vote for anti-American leftist filth, regardless of the political party they happen to be registered with at the time. However, Trump has done more for Alaska than any President since Nixon gave his presidential approval to begin the trans-Alaska pipeline project in 1973.
Obama lifted the moratorium on energy exports, made America an oil exporting country again. That did more for Alaska than anything Trump has done.
 

AliHajiSheik

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2012
Messages
10,377
Reaction score
3,453
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Save your money. The environmental hearings in Canada wil take years and not end wel for the project and that's not looking at the aboriginal issues. There's almost no reason for Canada to allow this.
This appears to be a substantive project headed by Canadians. They are also engaging the Indigenous Peoples on both side of the border and seem to have a grasp of the environmental concerns and processes. Seems to be well thought out. What are your issues with it?

A2A Website
 

swing_voter

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 4, 2019
Messages
8,255
Reaction score
4,954
Location
'Murica
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
It doesn't matter what Trump approves.

3 more months and he's gone.
 

Grand Mal

Question authority
DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2013
Messages
33,115
Reaction score
16,409
Location
on an island off the left coast of Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
This appears to be a substantive project headed by Canadians. They are also engaging the Indigenous Peoples on both side of the border and seem to have a grasp of the environmental concerns and processes. Seems to be well thought out. What are your issues with it?

A2A Website
One issue, mainly. Oil. Google "Lac Megantic" to see what my issue with transporting oil by rail is. I'm all for pipelines to move that stuff- too many things can go wrong with truck or rail tankers. I'm pretty sure that, whatever they're saying now, any rail link between Alaska and Alberta has sooner or later got to involve oil.
I can see the big benefit this would be for Alaska but what's the advantage to us on this side of the border?
 

AliHajiSheik

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2012
Messages
10,377
Reaction score
3,453
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
One issue, mainly. Oil. Google "Lac Megantic" to see what my issue with transporting oil by rail is. I'm all for pipelines to move that stuff- too many things can go wrong with truck or rail tankers. I'm pretty sure that, whatever they're saying now, any rail link between Alaska and Alberta has sooner or later got to involve oil.
I can see the big benefit this would be for Alaska but what's the advantage to us on this side of the border?
I hadn't considered the oil coming FROM Alberta as opposed to an alternate pathway for Alaskan oil.
 

Glitch

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 3, 2019
Messages
7,633
Reaction score
2,720
Location
Alaska (61.5°N, -149°W)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Obama lifted the moratorium on energy exports, made America an oil exporting country again. That did more for Alaska than anything Trump has done.
Obama illegally shut down all oil production in Cook Inlet with his unconstitutional off-shore drilling moratorium. In just two years Obama tripled the cost of natural gas in south central Alaska and put thousands of Alaskans out of work. Obama even denied Alaska FEMA aid after we were hit by a category I typhoon in September 2012. Obama was an unmitigated disaster for Alaska.
 

Glitch

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 3, 2019
Messages
7,633
Reaction score
2,720
Location
Alaska (61.5°N, -149°W)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I hadn't considered the oil coming FROM Alberta as opposed to an alternate pathway for Alaskan oil.
Why would Alaska ship oil via the railroad when we already have a pipeline to an oil terminal in Valdez?

The Alaska railroad goes to Whittier, not Valdez. Which means that we couldn't ship oil via rail, even if we wanted to.

If Canada wants to ship their oil via rail, they would have to unload the oil at Pump Station #9 near Delta Junction and ship it via the trans-Alaska pipeline to Valdez. The facilities in Whittier can ship coal, lead, zinc, and other resources, but not oil or natural gas. Whittier and Valdez are the only two warm-water ports this far north, and only Valdez is equipped to deal with oil tankers. We currently do not have the facilities to liquefy natural gas.
 

AliHajiSheik

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2012
Messages
10,377
Reaction score
3,453
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Why would Alaska ship oil via the railroad when we already have a pipeline to an oil terminal in Valdez?

The Alaska railroad goes to Whittier, not Valdez. Which means that we couldn't ship oil via rail, even if we wanted to.

If Canada wants to ship their oil via rail, they would have to unload the oil at Pump Station #9 near Delta Junction and ship it via the trans-Alaska pipeline to Valdez. The facilities in Whittier can ship coal, lead, zinc, and other resources, but not oil or natural gas. Whittier and Valdez are the only two warm-water ports this far north, and only Valdez is equipped to deal with oil tankers. We currently do not have the facilities to liquefy natural gas.
Unlike many on DP, I'm not an expert on every topic, I merely wasn't thinking the issue was in that direction. As for the logistics you describe, I'm not sure why Alaska would want the "dirtier" Alberta oil going through its pipeline, which perhaps would reinforce the idea that this rail project isn't about oil, overtly or covertly.
 

Glitch

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 3, 2019
Messages
7,633
Reaction score
2,720
Location
Alaska (61.5°N, -149°W)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Unlike many on DP, I'm not an expert on every topic, I merely wasn't thinking the issue was in that direction. As for the logistics you describe, I'm not sure why Alaska would want the "dirtier" Alberta oil going through its pipeline, which perhaps would reinforce the idea that this rail project isn't about oil, overtly or covertly.
Only the lower-48ers are assuming it is about oil. Apparently they think that is all Alaska produces.

Alaska developed its short railroad in order to move coal from the Usibelli and Sutton coal mines in the Matanuska-Susitna Valley to market via the deep-water warm-water port in Whittier. The Alaska railroad extends from Fairbanks to Whittier, with its headquarters in Anchorage. The Alaska railroad also serves to deliver bulk goods to Anchorage and Fairbanks that were barged to Whittier from Oregon and Washington State.

The oil royalties Alaska collects is also based upon the amount of oil shipped via the trans-Alaska pipeline. There are also significant differences between the oil being drilled on the north slope and Alberta's heavy oil sands. So it is not very likely that they will be putting Canadian oil into the trans-Alaska pipeline. Besides, Alberta already has a market for its oil - the lower-48. Canada exports more oil to the US than any other nation. Even Mexico comes in a distant second place.

There are other Canadian resources that can be shipped to the ports in Whittier via A2A, but why would they when they have the ports in Vancouver, BC, already available to them?

The primary purpose for the A2A is to ship non-liquid resources from Alaska to the lower-48, and to receive bulk goods from the lower-48 more economically than shipping them via barge. Passengers would just be a side benefit.
 

Somerville

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 29, 2012
Messages
14,415
Reaction score
5,829
Location
On an island. Not that one!
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
You are mistaken. The A2A will carry passengers. The route will be from Delta Junction, Alaska, to Fort McKay, Alberta. Not Alberta's oil fields.
You are mistaken. The A2A MAY carry passengers. The route will be from Delta Junction, Alaska to Fort McMURRAY, Alberta - a major centre in the oil field business.

Try doing a bit more reading before posting nonsense in the future.

Alberta eyes oil export route as Trump approves Alaska rail link
The presidential permit, announced in a tweet late on Friday, will push forward a $17 billion project to build a rail line between Fort McMurray, in the heart of Alberta’s oil sands, and Delta Junction in Alaska, according to Alaska – Alberta Railway Development Corp., or A2A, the company behind the project.
(. . .)
Alberta’s government welcomes the U.S. presidential permit for the project, Sonya Savage, the province’s energy minister, said in a tweet. “We support the development of trade corridors that can unlock new markets.”

The rail link could serve as an alternative way for oil sands producers to sell into the Asian market, allowing the industry to diversify its customer base away from the U.S., which currently buys nearly all of Canada’s oil exports.
Why would Alberta wish to "to diversify its customer base away from the U.S."? Isn't the U.S. the biggest market in the world?

More on the issue from Canadian sources.
Railway could move oil, grain, ore, container goods and potentially passengers

a2a map.JPG

Proposed railroad between Alberta and Alaska gets thumbs-up from Trump

As proposed by the development corporation, the $22-billion rail line would run for 2,570 kilometres between Fairbanks, Alaska and the oil hub of Fort McMurray, Alta. It would connect to the existing Alaska Railway, which reaches the port city of Anchorage, as well as the larger North American rail network through Alberta.

The proposal calls for the railway to be privately funded and privately owned.

The U.S. only has jurisdiction over a small segment of the proposed railroad – about one-eighth of its total length – running southeast from Fairbanks to the Yukon border.
 

Roadvirus

Heading North
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 19, 2014
Messages
16,196
Reaction score
7,296
Location
Tennessee, USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The Enviroweenies will pretty much litigate it to death, so no reason to celebrate this as an accomplishment.

Those ****wits will complain that it will endanger the Humperdinkle Pinwheel Spider or the "endangered" Spotted Dick Flea (obviously not real insects...just being facetious) and that will be the end of it.
 

Glitch

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 3, 2019
Messages
7,633
Reaction score
2,720
Location
Alaska (61.5°N, -149°W)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
You are mistaken. The A2A MAY carry passengers. The route will be from Delta Junction, Alaska to Fort McMURRAY, Alberta - a major centre in the oil field business.

Try doing a bit more reading before posting nonsense in the future.



Why would Alberta wish to "to diversify its customer base away from the U.S."? Isn't the U.S. the biggest market in the world?

More on the issue from Canadian sources.
Railway could move oil, grain, ore, container goods and potentially passengers

View attachment 67297242
There will be no oil shipped to Alaska from Canada via rail, and the A2A will carry passengers, although that was not its primary purpose. You clearly have no clue what you are talking about.
 

Glitch

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 3, 2019
Messages
7,633
Reaction score
2,720
Location
Alaska (61.5°N, -149°W)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The Enviroweenies will pretty much litigate it to death, so no reason to celebrate this as an accomplishment.

Those ****wits will complain that it will endanger the Humperdinkle Pinwheel Spider or the "endangered" Spotted Dick Flea (obviously not real insects...just being facetious) and that will be the end of it.
Let them. We are use to dealing with the eco-fanatics in Alaska. The last time Greenpeace showed their face in Alaska we confiscated and impounded their vessel for violating Alaska environmental law and not filing a financial contingency plan with the State. The only eco-freaks who complain about Alaska's development projects are all from the lower-48. So they are easy to ignore.

We still need to build an extension of the Alaska railroad from Fairbanks to Delta Junction. That section of railroad currently does not exist.
 

bongsaway

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 16, 2019
Messages
13,896
Reaction score
6,025
Location
Flori-duh
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
The current estimate for the project is $22 billion.

While I voted for Sen. Cruz in 2016, I have to say that Trump has done a great deal for Alaska. From the Department of the Interior changing Mount McKinley back to its original name, Denali, to opening the 1002 Area of ANWR. Which is something Alaska has been striving to accomplish for decades. Now this.
 

Glitch

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 3, 2019
Messages
7,633
Reaction score
2,720
Location
Alaska (61.5°N, -149°W)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
That is precisely the kind of content I expect from "progressives." Thanks for maintaining the stereotype.
 

bongsaway

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 16, 2019
Messages
13,896
Reaction score
6,025
Location
Flori-duh
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
The current estimate for the project is $22 billion.

While I voted for Sen. Cruz in 2016, I have to say that Trump has done a great deal for Alaska. From the Department of the Interior changing Mount McKinley back to its original name, Denali, to opening the 1002 Area of ANWR. Which is something Alaska has been striving to accomplish for decades. Now this.
He changed a name? Wow! I'm sure the mountain feels much better. Opening anwr for? I have no idea but I'll venture a guess, drilling for gas and oil. Am I close? Who wouldn't trade a national wildlife reserve for profits? Alaska has been striving against itself to open its own lands? Isn't there enough land in alaska to not have to drill in wildlife preserves?
 

Somerville

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 29, 2012
Messages
14,415
Reaction score
5,829
Location
On an island. Not that one!
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
He changed a name? Wow! I'm sure the mountain feels much better. Opening anwr for? I have no idea but I'll venture a guess, drilling for gas and oil. Am I close? Who wouldn't trade a national wildlife reserve for profits? Alaska has been striving against itself to open its own lands? Isn't there enough land in alaska to not have to drill in wildlife preserves?
As with many of his comments Glitch was wrong about the name change from McKinley to Denali - that change was approved in 2015 by the black guy who 'stole' the White House.
 

Somerville

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 29, 2012
Messages
14,415
Reaction score
5,829
Location
On an island. Not that one!
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
There will be no oil shipped to Alaska from Canada via rail, and the A2A will carry passengers, although that was not its primary purpose. You clearly have no clue what you are talking about.
One cannot argue in any worthwhile manner with someone who denies reality. Enjoy your stay in the wilderness away from all those "enviroweenies" and other folk who frighten you.
 

Glitch

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 3, 2019
Messages
7,633
Reaction score
2,720
Location
Alaska (61.5°N, -149°W)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
He changed a name? Wow! I'm sure the mountain feels much better. Opening anwr for? I have no idea but I'll venture a guess, drilling for gas and oil. Am I close? Who wouldn't trade a national wildlife reserve for profits? Alaska has been striving against itself to open its own lands? Isn't there enough land in alaska to not have to drill in wildlife preserves?
The anti-American Democrat filth have been anti-development for decades, beginning with Carter who created ANWR specifically to prevent Alaska from developing its own resources. Since between 6 and 8 billion barrels of recoverable oil was discovered in the 1002 Area of ANWR by the USGS in 1990 Alaska has been seeking federal approval to develop that oil and bring it to production. Only to be repeatedly blocked by either anti-development Democrat Presidents or anti-development Democrats in Congress who will do whatever it takes to harm the US.

Your complete ignorance of how much lands belong to the federal government and how much belongs to the State of Alaska is noted, and expected. Why would we be seeking congressional or presidential approval if those lands belonged to the State of Alaska?
 

Manc Skipper

Wrinkly member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2008
Messages
31,857
Reaction score
20,851
Location
Southern England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Of course. I know the US and Canada have been talking about it since the 1990s. However, talks didn't get serious until 2010. The US is also talking with Russia about a railroad from Alaska to Siberia, under the Bering Sea. You might be able to travel from Miami, FL to London, England entirely by train one day.
Johnson might have blown up the channel tunnel by then, to stop the immigrants sneaking in!
 

Glitch

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 3, 2019
Messages
7,633
Reaction score
2,720
Location
Alaska (61.5°N, -149°W)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Johnson might have blown up the channel tunnel by then, to stop the immigrants sneaking in!
Yea, I'm not holding my breath for a channel tunnel. Not only is it 50+ miles under the Bering Sea, Russia doesn't use the same rail gauge as the rest of the planet. So everyone would have to switch trains either just before or just after the tunnel. Winters are not exactly friendly in the Bearing Sea, as the King crab fisherman can attest. Then there is the 1,000 miles of rail they would have to build from Fairbanks to Nome, or where ever the channel tunnel crossing happens to be. I don't see it happening any time in the foreseeable future.

The A2A is a much more viable project. They are claiming it can be built in 5 to 6 years, but I consider that to be optimistic. I think closer to a decade is a more realistic projection, maybe in the 8 to 10 year range. The most difficult section will be through the Rockies from Whitehorse to Muncho Lake. They will only have very short Summers to work on that section.
 
Last edited:

bongsaway

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 16, 2019
Messages
13,896
Reaction score
6,025
Location
Flori-duh
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
The anti-American Democrat filth have been anti-development for decades, beginning with Carter who created ANWR specifically to prevent Alaska from developing its own resources. Since between 6 and 8 billion barrels of recoverable oil was discovered in the 1002 Area of ANWR by the USGS in 1990 Alaska has been seeking federal approval to develop that oil and bring it to production. Only to be repeatedly blocked by either anti-development Democrat Presidents or anti-development Democrats in Congress who will do whatever it takes to harm the US.

Your complete ignorance of how much lands belong to the federal government and how much belongs to the State of Alaska is noted, and expected. Why would we be seeking congressional or presidential approval if those lands belonged to the State of Alaska?
You're getting your panties all in a wad because the state of alaska can't get its hands on more oil? Oh boo hoo. You money hungry folks would destroy the whole world for profit.

The right doesn't seem to make any distinction between the fires burning on federal lands in california and state land.
 

UtahBill

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
18,265
Reaction score
6,648
Location
Utah
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
You're getting your panties all in a wad because the state of alaska can't get its hands on more oil? Oh boo hoo. You money hungry folks would destroy the whole world for profit.

The right doesn't seem to make any distinction between the fires burning on federal lands in california and state land.
View on line. Modern Marvels, engineering disasters, on History channel....or YouTUbe videos, google these words. A LOT of engineering projects fail and many engineers knew the projects were risky. Permafrost is a big issue and hardly any engineers are knowledgeable on the topic. Google Bethel, Alaska. Even St. George, Utah's airport had major problems building and then re-building one of their runways. This is no small issue. My posts are general, not personally challenging previous posters. No one will need to buy new panties.
 

bongsaway

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 16, 2019
Messages
13,896
Reaction score
6,025
Location
Flori-duh
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
View on line. Modern Marvels, engineering disasters, on History channel....or YouTUbe videos, google these words. A LOT of engineering projects fail and many engineers knew the projects were risky. Permafrost is a big issue and hardly any engineers are knowledgeable on the topic. Google Bethel, Alaska. Even St. George, Utah's airport had major problems building and then re-building one of their runways. This is no small issue. My posts are general, not personally challenging previous posters. No one will need to buy new panties.
I apologize but I'm not seeing your point? The history channel used to be my favorite viewing spot and I'm quite familiar with modern marvels. I don't see what that has to do with drilling in a national wildlife refuge?
 
Top Bottom