Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Keystone XL Pipeline Advances

+2
Sal
ZVUGKTUBM
6 posters

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

1Keystone XL Pipeline Advances Empty Keystone XL Pipeline Advances 1/25/2013, 4:58 pm

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM

http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2013/0123/Keystone-XL-pipeline-Nebraska-s-approval-puts-Obama-in-a-bind/(page)/2

The Nebraska governor is now satisfied that changes to the proposed pipeline route are less-dangerous to the Ogallala Aquifer underlying the state than before.

This development better facilitates the continued expansion of bitumen-recovery from the Athabasca Oil Sands region of Alberta, Canada. There are 175 billion barrels of recoverable heavy-oil from the Canadian tar sands.

-I will go on record by saying I favor ANY development of North American energy resources that may help us not have to import oil from the Middle East-

I have never understood the outcry against this pipeline. Bitumen is currently delivered to the same refineries in Cushing, Oklahoma that new pipeline will service--By Rail. Is it safer to have trains pull tank-cars loaded with millions of gallons of bitumen-over the same aquifer-than delivering it using a pipeline?

It seems to me that the real motive against the Keystone XL pipeline rests with radical environmentalists who are REALLY more worried about the hob-goblins of global warming. They are vehemently against further tar-sands development up in Canada-calling it "dirty-oil," and see this pipeline as their "Custer's Last Stand" for the issue.

It is a useless fight, as nothing on this planet will stop Canada from extracting every drop they can get from the oil-sands. The Canadians will be extracting 5-million barrels of bitumen per day by the 2030s, so sit on that!

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

Sal

Sal

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2013/0123/Keystone-XL-pipeline-Nebraska-s-approval-puts-Obama-in-a-bind/(page)/2

The Nebraska governor is now satisfied that changes to the proposed pipeline route are less-dangerous to the Ogallala Aquifer underlying the state than before.

This development better facilitates the continued expansion of bitumen-recovery from the Athabasca Oil Sands region of Alberta, Canada. There are 175 billion barrels of recoverable heavy-oil from the Canadian tar sands.

-I will go on record by saying I favor ANY development of North American energy resources that may help us not have to import oil from the Middle East-

I have never understood the outcry against this pipeline. Bitumen is currently delivered to the same refineries in Cushing, Oklahoma that new pipeline will service--By Rail. Is it safer to have trains pull tank-cars loaded with millions of gallons of bitumen-over the same aquifer-than delivering it using a pipeline?

It seems to me that the real motive against the Keystone XL pipeline rests with radical environmentalists who are REALLY more worried about the hob-goblins of global warming. They are vehemently against further tar-sands development up in Canada-calling it "dirty-oil," and see this pipeline as their "Custer's Last Stand" for the issue.

It is a useless fight, as nothing on this planet will stop Canada from extracting every drop they can get from the oil-sands. The Canadians will be extracting 5-million barrels of bitumen per day by the 2030s, so sit on that!

Just so you know, Z, the Keystone pipeline will transport the oil to a foreign trade zone in Port Arthur TX that allows tax free transactions, and then will be shipped to Asia.

America will be assuming much of the risk and none of the benefit.

It may even end up costing American jobs if it causes demand for product from US refineries to drop - and many studies have suggested it will do just that.

Our natural resources are not nationalized, and are sold to the highest bidder on the international market.

Drill baby drill is a fallacy at its very core.

knothead

knothead

Sal wrote:
ZVUGKTUBM wrote:http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2013/0123/Keystone-XL-pipeline-Nebraska-s-approval-puts-Obama-in-a-bind/(page)/2

The Nebraska governor is now satisfied that changes to the proposed pipeline route are less-dangerous to the Ogallala Aquifer underlying the state than before.

This development better facilitates the continued expansion of bitumen-recovery from the Athabasca Oil Sands region of Alberta, Canada. There are 175 billion barrels of recoverable heavy-oil from the Canadian tar sands.

-I will go on record by saying I favor ANY development of North American energy resources that may help us not have to import oil from the Middle East-

I have never understood the outcry against this pipeline. Bitumen is currently delivered to the same refineries in Cushing, Oklahoma that new pipeline will service--By Rail. Is it safer to have trains pull tank-cars loaded with millions of gallons of bitumen-over the same aquifer-than delivering it using a pipeline?

It seems to me that the real motive against the Keystone XL pipeline rests with radical environmentalists who are REALLY more worried about the hob-goblins of global warming. They are vehemently against further tar-sands development up in Canada-calling it "dirty-oil," and see this pipeline as their "Custer's Last Stand" for the issue.

It is a useless fight, as nothing on this planet will stop Canada from extracting every drop they can get from the oil-sands. The Canadians will be extracting 5-million barrels of bitumen per day by the 2030s, so sit on that!

Just so you know, Z, the Keystone pipeline will transport the oil to a foreign trade zone in Port Arthur TX that allows tax free transactions, and then will be shipped to Asia.

America will be assuming much of the risk and none of the benefit.

It may even end up costing American jobs if it causes demand for product from US refineries to drop - and many studies have suggested it will do just that.

Our natural resources are not nationalized, and are sold to the highest bidder on the international market.

Drill baby drill is a fallacy at its very core.

*****************************************************

You beat me to it Sal . . . . . those pesky details!

Guest


Guest

Sal wrote:

Just so you know, Z, the Keystone pipeline will transport the oil to a foreign trade zone in Port Arthur TX that allows tax free transactions, and then will be shipped to Asia.



America will be assuming much of the risk and none of the benefit.

It may even end up costing American jobs if it causes demand for product from US refineries to drop - and many studies have suggested it will do just that.

Our natural resources are not nationalized, and are sold to the highest bidder on the international market.

Drill baby drill is a fallacy at its very core.



1) Lots of our own oil is already sold on the world market and God knows where it ends up. Who cares if it is sold in Asia?

2) If the oil is sold in Asia, how will that affect American refineries? It won't and you are just fearmongering. Your first statement talks about it being sold in Asia. Your words, not mine.

3) There are lots of high paying jobs that will continue on even after this pipeline is constructed. Many of them being maintenance. Oil jobs don't pay minimum wage, service industry scale. They are 3 to 4x that at entry level.


4) As for risk versus benefit, since the Carter Doctrine of 1979, we've made it policy to defend and keep open the oil lanes in the Middle East. President Carter defined that is a vital national interest. Not one soldier will be used, deployed, or killed defending this pipeline and oil infastructure. Get your head out of your arse.



Only an idiot is against this pipeline.

Sal

Sal

PACEDOG#1 wrote:


1) Lots of our own oil is already sold on the world market and God knows where it ends up. Who cares if it is sold in Asia?

ALL of the oil produced in the United States is sold on the world market.
Hence, it's not OUR oil.

2) If the oil is sold in Asia, how will that affect American refineries? It won't and you are just fearmongering. Your first statement talks about it being sold in Asia. Your words, not mine.

More tar sands product from Canada going to Asia = less product produced in American refineries going to Asia


3) There are lots of high paying jobs that will continue on even after this pipeline is constructed. Many of them being maintenance. Oil jobs don't pay minimum wage, service industry scale. They are 3 to 4x that at entry level.

Yes, Canadian jobs.

4) As for risk versus benefit, since the Carter Doctrine of 1979, we've made it policy to defend and keep open the oil lanes in the Middle East. President Carter defined that is a vital national interest.

And, this pipeline doesn't change that situation one iota.


Only an idiot is against this pipeline.

Only useful idiots to the oil company corporatists are for it.

Quit tossing me softballs, dickhead.

Guest


Guest

Sal wrote:

Only useful idiots to the oil company corporatists are for it.

Quit tossing me softballs, dickhead.



So you swung and missed at the softballs. That is funny.

I am for it because it will help put Americans back to work and not sucking off of the teat of government.

Oil is being sent to China as we speak because Obama failed to OK this option in his first term.

Canadians that do work on the pipeline will be in America doing so. There will be Americans working the pipeline as well. Both will be spending that money in America for all sorts of products and goods. Good try though.

The Carter Doctrine was before your time. It was one of the reasons why the Rapid Deployment Force was created and the emphasis being Delta Force. I don't expect you to understand because you were not driving when the price of oil doubled in weeks and fuel was scarce.

That being said, no soldiers will deploy to defend the Keystone Pipeline. As long as we are getting oil from the ME, guess what, we'll have soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines putting it all on the line just so you have can affordable gasoline to get to your World of Warcraft tournaments.

Sal

Sal

PACEDOG#1 wrote:

Oil is being sent to China as we speak because Obama failed to OK this option in his first term.


What the hell are you talking about, dimwit?

Oil is being sent to China because they bought it on the world market.

That's how it works.


scratch

Guest


Guest

Sal wrote:
PACEDOG#1 wrote:

Oil is being sent to China as we speak because Obama failed to OK this option in his first term.


What the hell are you talking about, dimwit?

Oil is being sent to China because they bought it on the world market.

That's how it works.


scratch

Oil is sent to China because there was already a pipeline to the Pacific in Canada bought and paid for by the government in Canada.

Canada doesn't have time to play politics. They have an economy that needs to function and oil money makes it function.

That's how it works.

Guest


Guest

PACEDOG#1 wrote:
Sal wrote:
PACEDOG#1 wrote:

Oil is being sent to China as we speak because Obama failed to OK this option in his first term.


What the hell are you talking about, dimwit?

Oil is being sent to China because they bought it on the world market.

That's how it works.


scratch

Oil is sent to China because there was already a pipeline to the Pacific in Canada bought and paid for by the government in Canada.

Canada doesn't have time to play politics. They have an economy that needs to function and oil money makes it function.

That's how it works.


Keystone XL Pipeline Advances DSCN2724

10Keystone XL Pipeline Advances Empty Re: Keystone XL Pipeline Advances 1/25/2013, 8:50 pm

Guest


Guest

7th Fingerman...

11Keystone XL Pipeline Advances Empty Re: Keystone XL Pipeline Advances 1/25/2013, 11:20 pm

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM

PACEDOG#1 wrote:
Sal wrote:
PACEDOG#1 wrote:

Oil is being sent to China as we speak because Obama failed to OK this option in his first term.


What the hell are you talking about, dimwit?

Oil is being sent to China because they bought it on the world market.

That's how it works.


scratch

Oil is sent to China because there was already a pipeline to the Pacific in Canada bought and paid for by the government in Canada. Canada doesn't have time to play politics. They have an economy that needs to function and oil money makes it function.

That's how it works.


This is true. You will almost never see me agree with PaceDog, but on this issue, I digress. The Canadians are going to sell oil recovered from the Tar Sands. They can either sell it to the U.S., or they can find an Asian customer. China and India stand waiting in the wings. My point is, nothing is going to stop the Canadians from fully and completely developing their "dirty oil" resource. The tar sands region has 175 billion barrels estimated recoverable--it's a mini-Saudi Arabia in its own right. It will be developed.

Why is it called "dirty oil?" Because its recovery causes more greenhouse gas emmissions than conventional oil wells do. The reason it is sent to refineries in Oklaholma is because they have the ability to handle heavy crude.

Without the pipeline, the bitumen must be shipped by rail. The way it works is, trains going north to the tar sands region haul tank cars full of naphtha, which is used to dilute the bitumen so it can flow through pipes. Those trains then haul diluted bitumen back south to the Oklahoma refineries, and the process is repeated.

While we refine and ultimately establish promising renewable technologies (especially the radical new solar technologies that are being developed), we still need to use fossil fuels, which will remain important to our energy mix for the foreseeable future.

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

12Keystone XL Pipeline Advances Empty Re: Keystone XL Pipeline Advances 1/26/2013, 9:50 pm

Guest


Guest

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:
PACEDOG#1 wrote:
Sal wrote:
PACEDOG#1 wrote:

Oil is being sent to China as we speak because Obama failed to OK this option in his first term.


What the hell are you talking about, dimwit?

Oil is being sent to China because they bought it on the world market.

That's how it works.


scratch

Oil is sent to China because there was already a pipeline to the Pacific in Canada bought and paid for by the government in Canada. Canada doesn't have time to play politics. They have an economy that needs to function and oil money makes it function.

That's how it works.


This is true. You will almost never see me agree with PaceDog, but on this issue, I digress. The Canadians are going to sell oil recovered from the Tar Sands. They can either sell it to the U.S., or they can find an Asian customer. China and India stand waiting in the wings. My point is, nothing is going to stop the Canadians from fully and completely developing their "dirty oil" resource. The tar sands region has 175 billion barrels estimated recoverable--it's a mini-Saudi Arabia in its own right. It will be developed.

Why is it called "dirty oil?" Because its recovery causes more greenhouse gas emmissions than conventional oil wells do. The reason it is sent to refineries in Oklaholma is because they have the ability to handle heavy crude.

Without the pipeline, the bitumen must be shipped by rail. The way it works is, trains going north to the tar sands region haul tank cars full of naphtha, which is used to dilute the bitumen so it can flow through pipes. Those trains then haul diluted bitumen back south to the Oklahoma refineries, and the process is repeated.

While we refine and ultimately establish promising renewable technologies (especially the radical new solar technologies that are being developed), we still need to use fossil fuels, which will remain important to our energy mix for the foreseeable future.

Yep

13Keystone XL Pipeline Advances Empty Re: Keystone XL Pipeline Advances 1/26/2013, 10:16 pm

2seaoat



The fallacy of this discussion is that the first phase of the keystone pipeline was put in about 6 years ago and has been feeding midwest refineries in Illinois. We as a country have most certainly been getting jobs and gasoline from this source. The problem from the second leg of the pipeline is that midwest prices are going to go up, some jobs are going to be lost as oil is diverted from the midwest to the profitable exports. I agree with Z on this.....people just do not understand that the gas does not magically appear in their gas tanks. I drive a Prius, but even everybody did.....we have transition problems from peak oil until technology allows us to be independent of the imports and have viable alternatives......if you think the economic dislocation has been tough the last five years......it will be devastating during the gap......tough times if we do not fully explore all alternatives. We are floating on a temporary Natural gas oversupply, and our fuel prices are exceptionally low from where they are going to go.

14Keystone XL Pipeline Advances Empty Re: Keystone XL Pipeline Advances 1/26/2013, 10:29 pm

Guest


Guest

2seaoat wrote:The fallacy of this discussion is that the first phase of the keystone pipeline was put in about 6 years ago and has been feeding midwest refineries in Illinois. We as a country have most certainly been getting jobs and gasoline from this source. The problem from the second leg of the pipeline is that midwest prices are going to go up, some jobs are going to be lost as oil is diverted from the midwest to the profitable exports. I agree with Z on this.....people just do not understand that the gas does not magically appear in their gas tanks. I drive a Prius, but even everybody did.....we have transition problems from peak oil until technology allows us to be independent of the imports and have viable alternatives......if you think the economic dislocation has been tough the last five years......it will be devastating during the gap......tough times if we do not fully explore all alternatives. We are floating on a temporary Natural gas oversupply, and our fuel prices are exceptionally low from where they are going to go.



It is about creating JOBS which we do not have a lot of and the ones we do are piss poor in pay. All energy jobs are high paying to include maintenance of the pipeline.

If peak oil were really upon us, oil would already be out of reach

15Keystone XL Pipeline Advances Empty Re: Keystone XL Pipeline Advances 1/26/2013, 10:57 pm

Floridatexan

Floridatexan

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:
PACEDOG#1 wrote:
Sal wrote:
PACEDOG#1 wrote:

Oil is being sent to China as we speak because Obama failed to OK this option in his first term.


What the hell are you talking about, dimwit?

Oil is being sent to China because they bought it on the world market.

That's how it works.


scratch

Oil is sent to China because there was already a pipeline to the Pacific in Canada bought and paid for by the government in Canada. Canada doesn't have time to play politics. They have an economy that needs to function and oil money makes it function.

That's how it works.


This is true. You will almost never see me agree with PaceDog, but on this issue, I digress. The Canadians are going to sell oil recovered from the Tar Sands. They can either sell it to the U.S., or they can find an Asian customer. China and India stand waiting in the wings. My point is, nothing is going to stop the Canadians from fully and completely developing their "dirty oil" resource. The tar sands region has 175 billion barrels estimated recoverable--it's a mini-Saudi Arabia in its own right. It will be developed.

Why is it called "dirty oil?" Because its recovery causes more greenhouse gas emmissions than conventional oil wells do. The reason it is sent to refineries in Oklaholma is because they have the ability to handle heavy crude.

Without the pipeline, the bitumen must be shipped by rail. The way it works is, trains going north to the tar sands region haul tank cars full of naphtha, which is used to dilute the bitumen so it can flow through pipes. Those trains then haul diluted bitumen back south to the Oklahoma refineries, and the process is repeated.

While we refine and ultimately establish promising renewable technologies (especially the radical new solar technologies that are being developed), we still need to use fossil fuels, which will remain important to our energy mix for the foreseeable future.

Z, the Canadians don't want to ship the tar sands oil through their own country because of opposition. Why should we allow the chance of a yet another catastrophe in the US because of corporate greed when the majority won't be getting benefits from the oil and it may destroy our largest aquifer? The only reason we're still dependent upon fossil fuels is that the entrenched interests bought up or suppressed the technology that might have already replaced them. And I can't even begin to imagine how much fuel went to fight wars of aggression in Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention the loss of life: blood for oil...not worth it. I'd rather live in a cave than know that people lost their lives so I could drive a gas guzzler.

16Keystone XL Pipeline Advances Empty Re: Keystone XL Pipeline Advances 1/27/2013, 12:52 am

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM

Floridatexan wrote:
ZVUGKTUBM wrote:
PACEDOG#1 wrote:
Sal wrote:
PACEDOG#1 wrote:

Oil is being sent to China as we speak because Obama failed to OK this option in his first term.


What the hell are you talking about, dimwit?

Oil is being sent to China because they bought it on the world market.

That's how it works.


scratch

Oil is sent to China because there was already a pipeline to the Pacific in Canada bought and paid for by the government in Canada. Canada doesn't have time to play politics. They have an economy that needs to function and oil money makes it function.

That's how it works.


This is true. You will almost never see me agree with PaceDog, but on this issue, I digress. The Canadians are going to sell oil recovered from the Tar Sands. They can either sell it to the U.S., or they can find an Asian customer. China and India stand waiting in the wings. My point is, nothing is going to stop the Canadians from fully and completely developing their "dirty oil" resource. The tar sands region has 175 billion barrels estimated recoverable--it's a mini-Saudi Arabia in its own right. It will be developed.

Why is it called "dirty oil?" Because its recovery causes more greenhouse gas emmissions than conventional oil wells do. The reason it is sent to refineries in Oklaholma is because they have the ability to handle heavy crude.

Without the pipeline, the bitumen must be shipped by rail. The way it works is, trains going north to the tar sands region haul tank cars full of naphtha, which is used to dilute the bitumen so it can flow through pipes. Those trains then haul diluted bitumen back south to the Oklahoma refineries, and the process is repeated.

While we refine and ultimately establish promising renewable technologies (especially the radical new solar technologies that are being developed), we still need to use fossil fuels, which will remain important to our energy mix for the foreseeable future.

Z, the Canadians don't want to ship the tar sands oil through their own country because of opposition. Why should we allow the chance of a yet another catastrophe in the US because of corporate greed when the majority won't be getting benefits from the oil and it may destroy our largest aquifer? The only reason we're still dependent upon fossil fuels is that the entrenched interests bought up or suppressed the technology that might have already replaced them. And I can't even begin to imagine how much fuel went to fight wars of aggression in Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention the loss of life: blood for oil...not worth it. I'd rather live in a cave than know that people lost their lives so I could drive a gas guzzler.


I am sorry, FT, but if your arguments were a boat, it would sink in 5 minutes from all of the holes in it.

First, the Ogallala aquifer is criss-crossed already by about 20,000 miles of existing petroleum pipelines. What makes the new pipeline more dangerous than what is already there? Second, stopping the pipeline will not stop the continued shipment of tar sands oil from Alberta to refineries in Cushing, Oklahoma, as they will just continue to do what they are doing now--ship it by rail--in oversized tank cars--across the same aquifer. I would think that shipping via those smoke-belching diesel trains creates far more GHG than shipment by pipeline would. Plus, have you ever heard of derailment? The BNSF railroad is so far into shipping petroleum products from the Bakken Shale region of North Dakota and from the Alberta tar sands (due to a lack of pipeline infrastructure serving these areas), that BNSF now advertises weekly in the Oil & Gas Journal. Their trains are rolling daily--right over the Ogallala Aquifer--hauling the oil that could be shipped via the new pipeline.

There may be continued opposition to tar sands development, but this will not stop Canada from puling all 175 billion barrels of bitumen out of the ground. As well, technology is allowing unprecedented new petroleum development here in the Lower 48, in tight shale formations that previously could not be economically developed. And Shale Gas is a huge game changer. There may be opposition, but even California gets it now---Governor Brown knows that the Monterey Shale formation in the San Joaquin Basin holds 15.4 billion barrels of recoverable crude (low side estimate). He wants the economic development and tax-revenue that will come from this, and he recently fired two state officials who were stonewalling drilling permits. States that sit over shale formations are looking at North Dakota and wanting some of the same action on their turf. They are all crafting regulations that will accommodate and regulate hydraulic fracturing, rather than just banning it outright. Even New York lifted its fracking ban—it sits right over the very hot Marcellus Shale (a major shale gas region).

I agree that vigorous work needs to continue on oil's replacement. I study energy issues, and there are breathtaking technologies coming out which will make this reality-eventually. The changes will be incremental and will come in stages, and fossil fuels will still be important for quite a while. You must remember that 10 calories of fossil fuels go into every food calorie that you and your family eats. Just a simple truth.

The reason I am big on petroleum development in the U.S. is I don't want to see any more American soldiers dying over foreign oil resources. Pump it here, pump it big--I still intend to have a solar roof one day.

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

17Keystone XL Pipeline Advances Empty Re: Keystone XL Pipeline Advances 1/27/2013, 12:57 am

Guest


Guest

Floridatexan wrote:

Z, the Canadians don't want to ship the tar sands oil through their own country because of opposition. Why should we allow the chance of a yet another catastrophe in the US because of corporate greed when the majority won't be getting benefits from the oil and it may destroy our largest aquifer? The only reason we're still dependent upon fossil fuels is that the entrenched interests bought up or suppressed the technology that might have already replaced them. And I can't even begin to imagine how much fuel went to fight wars of aggression in Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention the loss of life: blood for oil...not worth it. I'd rather live in a cave than know that people lost their lives so I could drive a gas guzzler.




FT,

The Canadians are already shipping it by train to their west coast to load on Chinese oil tankers. We've missed the boat boat by not agreeing to this sooner.

18Keystone XL Pipeline Advances Empty Re: Keystone XL Pipeline Advances 1/27/2013, 1:11 am

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM

No Keystone XL? Big Oil Will Just Take the Train

http://grist.org/climate-energy/no-keystone-xl-big-oil-will-just-take-the-train/

This article just backs up what I already stated. BNSF Railroad increased its crude shipments by 60% in 2012. One way or another, the oil is coming to market.

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

19Keystone XL Pipeline Advances Empty Re: Keystone XL Pipeline Advances 1/27/2013, 12:32 pm

Floridatexan

Floridatexan

http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/271-38/15730-get-ready-for-the-pipeline

I really hate to make the whole morning about the intellectual monkeyhouse that Fred Hiatt's running at The Washington Post, but the paper's lead editorial today, pushing the president to sign off on the Keystone XL pipeline rather forces us to enter the hallways of flung poo one more time. If whoever wrote the editorial knows anything about the pipeline, the toxic gunk that it will carry through virtually the entire continent, and the events surrounding the controversy both nationally, and in the state of Nebraska, it is not evident from the editorial itself, which is little more than a vague infomercial for TransCanada, which plans to build the pipeline, and which is a large energy company and, therefore, unworthy of the benefit of any doubts. I choose to believe that whoever wrote this mess simply was late for a lunch date and tossed it off.

President Obama rejected the Keystone XL oil pipeline this time last year, a result that Canada had every reason to be dismayed by, as did Americans whom the project would have employed. The issue is coming back, and the president has even less reason to nix the project than he did last time.
(Actually, "Canada" is as split over this environmentally calamitous project as we are, and TransCanada, because it is a large energy company, has been lying about the jobs the pipeline would create from the very start of the project. This should give the president pause.)

After years of federal review, there was little question last year that construction of the pipeline, which would transport heavy, oil-like bitumen from Alberta to the Gulf of Mexico coast, should proceed. Thousands of miles of pipeline already crisscross this country. An environmental analysis had concluded that the risks of adding this new stretch were low. An economic review had found that Canada would get its bitumen to the world market - if not via pipeline to the gulf, then very likely by ship to China. Supply would make it to demand, one way or another.
(A fair-minded analysis would explain precisely what "heavy, oil-like bitumen" really is, and what it takes to remove it from the ground, and what it does to various lifeforms, including human beings. It also would point out that the thousands of miles of pipelines across the country already leak like sieves, including another Keystone pipeline run by TransCanada. It also would note that the pipeline was dreamed up in the first place because getting the gunk to China via, say Vancouver would put the project crossways with Canadian environmental laws and various treaties with indigenous tribes. Also, too; The Rocky Mountains. They thought up the pipeline because they knew our environmental regulations were lax and that we hadn't given a damn what the Indians thought since 1620. I am so very proud to be an American.)

Environmentalists nevertheless made Keystone XL a rallying issue. Among other things, they pointed to disquiet in Nebraska about the pipeline's proposed route, objecting that it would traverse environmentally sensitive areas, such as the state's Sand Hills.
(Regular readers of the blog know of our devotion here to the Oglalla aquifer, which is based on my long-held belief that we can do without having the Gobi Desert recreated between St. Louis and Denver. You will note that the Post here is limiting the "disquiet" in Nebraska to concern about the Sand Hills. This is the same bait-and-switch Governor Dave Heineman pulled the other day when he approved the revised pipeline route that avoids the Sand Hills but still crosses a piece of the aquifer. Also, a good part of the "disquiet" - nice word, Post - in Nebraska was occasioned because TransCanada was granted the power of eminent domain and has every intention of taking people's land away, which would "disquiet" me.)

The election is past, TransCanada has reapplied with a new proposed route, and this week Nebraska Gov. Dave Heineman (R) signed off on the plan, following an analysis from the state's Department of Environmental Quality. The regulators found that the new route would avoid the Sand Hills and other areas of concern. Though there is always some risk of spill, they said, "impacts on aquifers from a release should be localized, and Keystone would be responsible for any cleanup." TransCanada will have to buy at least $200 million in insurance to cover any cleanup costs.
(We have discussed Heineman's bait-and-switch already. The survey he relied on is mischaracterized here. The aquifer is certainly an "area of concern," as we have said. And, applied to an energy company, the last two sentences are a joke, as half-a-million pelicans in the Gulf will testify. TransCanada found the $200 million for insurance under the cushions of the sofa.)

Mr. Obama should ignore the activists who have bizarrely chosen to make Keystone XL a line-in-the-sand issue, when there are dozens more of far greater environmental import. He knows that the way to cut oil use is to reduce demand for the stuff, and he has begun to put that knowledge into practice, setting tough new fuel-efficiency standards for cars and trucks. That will actually make a difference, unlike blocking a pipeline here or there.
(Ah, and now we come to the Post's main point - hippie punching. It has made no serious attempt to address the legitimate environmental concerns regarding tar sands development and its implementation, the legitimate environmental concerns about the pipeline itself, or the legitimate environmental concerns regarding investing any trust in the good faith of an oil company. All it's really concerned about is that "activists" - to whom it condescends to explain what issues should be of "far greater environmental import" - somehow got in the way of The Way Things Are Supposed To Work. They have inconvenienced the Very Serious People with whom Fred Hiatt lunches between editing George F. Will's latest defense of climate-change denial. That's all the paper has here. The Post's dedication to actual democracy would embarrass the Plantagenets.)

Alas, though, the fix seems to be in. The wheels of the giant Not Giving A Damn machine in our nation's capital seem thoroughly greased. You can tell because the 53 senators - including two utterly useless Democrats - aren't even trying to come up with good lies anymore.

At a news conference Wednesday, senators from both parties said the Nebraska decision leaves Obama with no other choice but to approve the pipeline, which would carry up to 800,000 barrels of oil a day from tar sands in western Canada to refineries in Houston and other Texas ports. The pipeline also would travel though Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas and Oklahoma. "No more excuses. It's time to put people to work," Baucus said. "Back home, we call this a no-brainer," added Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va. Hoeven, of North Dakota, said the tar sands oil will be produced whether or not the U.S. approves the project. "Our choice is, the oil comes to us or it's going to China," he said.
You're only putting a very few people to work, and that's if you count the strippers. "No-brainer" is not a word Joe Manchin should toss around idly. And Hoeven's just lying. Either that, or he's too stupid to understand the phrase, "the world market." In actual fact, the gunk comes through us to refineries in Texas, whence it's just as likely to go to China as it would be if it sailed there from Vancouver, which it never would because the Canadians aren't as reckless with their land as we are with ours. You can pretend to be with this project because of jobs, or because of a spurious claim of energy independence. But, if you are in favor of this pipeline, and the gunk it will carry, you cannot claim to be serious about climate change. That, Joe, is a no-brainer.

-----------------

We've already seen the results first-hand of a foreign oil conglomerate's interest in protecting our environment.

20Keystone XL Pipeline Advances Empty Re: Keystone XL Pipeline Advances 1/27/2013, 1:59 pm

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM

You know what, FT? Nothing is going to stop the extraction of all 175 billion barrels of recoverable bitumen from the Athabasca Tar Sands. Just like nothing will stop the production of the shale resources within the United States.

Jerry Brown of California is one of the most liberal governors in the nation, and even he gets it--he wants nothing to stand in the way of further petroleum development in his state; even if it involves fracking. Governor Cuomo of New York, another liberal governor, lifted New York's ban on hydraulic fracturing in 2011.

I remain a firm believer in the theory of Peak Oil and have read a dozen books on this subject in the last three years. I am all for the eventual transition away from fossil fuels. However, I also recognize the importance of petroleum to modern society, and realize that some folks want to summarily ban the use of oil now and send the human race back into the dark ages. You and your family will starve to death if petroleum is banned outright.

I see all of this new fossil-fuel development in North America as a bridge to the future. Things will be radically different in 2050 (I won't be alive then). Our main energy source will be electricity, with much of it coming from radical new solar technologies that are just breaking out now. I don't want to write a book in this post, but there are other things on the horizon that will help lead to the eventual complete electrification of society (transportation and all) without having to burn fossil fuels to generate the power. That should go a long way to assuage the fears of those who worry about GHG/climate change. However, until that time, we need access to affordable petroleum, and I don't want to see our soldiers fighting for foreign access to it. Therefore, I am all for using new technologies to exploit previously inaccessible petroleum resources here in North America.

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

21Keystone XL Pipeline Advances Empty Re: Keystone XL Pipeline Advances 1/27/2013, 2:25 pm

Floridatexan

Floridatexan

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:You know what, FT? Nothing is going to stop the extraction of all 175 billion barrels of recoverable bitumen from the Athabasca Tar Sands. Just like nothing will stop the production of the shale resources within the United States.

Jerry Brown of California is one of the most liberal governors in the nation, and even he gets it--he wants nothing to stand in the way of further petroleum development in his state; even if it involves fracking. Governor Cuomo of New York, another liberal governor, lifted New York's ban on hydraulic fracturing in 2011.

I remain a firm believer in the theory of Peak Oil and have read a dozen books on this subject in the last three years. I am all for the eventual transition away from fossil fuels. However, I also recognize the importance of petroleum to modern society, and realize that some folks want to summarily ban the use of oil now and send the human race back into the dark ages. You and your family will starve to death if petroleum is banned outright.

I see all of this new fossil-fuel development in North America as a bridge to the future. Things will be radically different in 2050 (I won't be alive then). Our main energy source will be electricity, with much of it coming from radical new solar technologies that are just breaking out now. I don't want to write a book in this post, but there are other things on the horizon that will help lead to the eventual complete electrification of society (transportation and all) without having to burn fossil fuels to generate the power. That should go a long way to assuage the fears of those who worry about GHG/climate change. However, until that time, we need access to affordable petroleum, and I don't want to see our soldiers fighting for foreign access to it. Therefore, I am all for using new technologies to exploit previously inaccessible petroleum resources here in North America.

Z, petroleum will never be banned outright, and that is not the issue. My brother has been in the oilfield his whole adult life, including the Gulf of Mexico, South America, Saudi Arabia and Brunei. He also fought fires in Kuwait. My sister and her ex worked for Bechtol on the Aliasco pipeline. The time for weaning ourselves from petroleum should have been during the Reagan years, after the oil crisis of the late 70's. Instead, we had fake prosperity and the marketing of huge, gas-guzzling SUV's. If the Canadians want to market their oil, why don't they refine it themselves? I'm sick and tired of foreign corporations (and some of our own, if they can still be called "our own") spoiling our natural resources in the name of profit.

22Keystone XL Pipeline Advances Empty Re: Keystone XL Pipeline Advances 1/27/2013, 2:55 pm

Guest


Guest

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=127114635

23Keystone XL Pipeline Advances Empty Re: Keystone XL Pipeline Advances 1/28/2013, 1:33 am

Markle

Markle

Floridatexan wrote:
ZVUGKTUBM wrote:
PACEDOG#1 wrote:
Sal wrote:
PACEDOG#1 wrote:

Oil is being sent to China as we speak because Obama failed to OK this option in his first term.


What the hell are you talking about, dimwit?

Oil is being sent to China because they bought it on the world market.

That's how it works.


scratch

Oil is sent to China because there was already a pipeline to the Pacific in Canada bought and paid for by the government in Canada. Canada doesn't have time to play politics. They have an economy that needs to function and oil money makes it function.

That's how it works.


This is true. You will almost never see me agree with PaceDog, but on this issue, I digress. The Canadians are going to sell oil recovered from the Tar Sands. They can either sell it to the U.S., or they can find an Asian customer. China and India stand waiting in the wings. My point is, nothing is going to stop the Canadians from fully and completely developing their "dirty oil" resource. The tar sands region has 175 billion barrels estimated recoverable--it's a mini-Saudi Arabia in its own right. It will be developed.

Why is it called "dirty oil?" Because its recovery causes more greenhouse gas emmissions than conventional oil wells do. The reason it is sent to refineries in Oklaholma is because they have the ability to handle heavy crude.

Without the pipeline, the bitumen must be shipped by rail. The way it works is, trains going north to the tar sands region haul tank cars full of naphtha, which is used to dilute the bitumen so it can flow through pipes. Those trains then haul diluted bitumen back south to the Oklahoma refineries, and the process is repeated.

While we refine and ultimately establish promising renewable technologies (especially the radical new solar technologies that are being developed), we still need to use fossil fuels, which will remain important to our energy mix for the foreseeable future.

Z, the Canadians don't want to ship the tar sands oil through their own country because of opposition. Why should we allow the chance of a yet another catastrophe in the US because of corporate greed when the majority won't be getting benefits from the oil and it may destroy our largest aquifer? The only reason we're still dependent upon fossil fuels is that the entrenched interests bought up or suppressed the technology that might have already replaced them. And I can't even begin to imagine how much fuel went to fight wars of aggression in Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention the loss of life: blood for oil...not worth it. I'd rather live in a cave than know that people lost their lives so I could drive a gas guzzler.

Who is stopping you?

How is it corporate greed when it is the consumer demanding reasonable priced oil and energy prices? You want sky high gas and energy prices. Who does that hurt the most? Low and middle income earners or high income earners?

How is that a good thing for our country?

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum