Keystone Pipeline rejected.

[Draka]

Obama has rejected the TransCanada proposition for the Keystone Pipeline. Some are hailing, some are condemning. I applaud. Where do you stand?

 

[YmirGF]

Obama has rejected the TransCanada proposition for the Keystone Pipeline. Some are hailing, some are condemning. I applaud. Where do you stand?

It is noteworthy that days after the defeat of Stephen Harper, and stringing the Harper government and TransCanada along for what seems to be ages, he makes this long expected announcement. What I am hearing from north of the 49th is that Keystone is not completely dead until after the US elections are done. I guess we will have to continue sending you this gunk via rail and truck... brilliant move, USA.

 

[Draka]

We should move to be off it as much as possible anyway. Move more towards wind and solar energy.

 

[esmith]

So tell me why you object to the Keystone XL pipeline.
You do realize that this oil will still be shipped to the oil refineries on the Gulf coast, it just won't be shipped by a more eco friendly pipeline; it will come by surface transit, read rail and tanker trucks. Don't rail and tankers produce more CO2 emissions than a pipeline?
Tell you what I'll give you a little reading assignment before you tell us why you object to the Keystone XL pipeline. Your reading assignment is:
http://www.vox.com/2014/11/14/7216751/keystone-pipeline-facts-controversy

 

[Draka]

The objective is to get off the drug in the first place. One does not insert an IV for easier use of a narcotic just because it is easier than repeatedly shooting up. The idea is to stop the drug use in the first place. Is it not? Our objective should be in cutting down and eventually kicking the habit entirely, not finding another way to shoot up.

 

[Quintessence]

@Draka, you've pretty much covered my main objections to the project and why I'm glad to see it shot down for the moment. At the same time, I recognize it is not reasonable for me to expect this country, much less the human world, to cease use of problematic energy forms at the drop of a hat. It becomes a matter of asking "while we shift to other energies, which of these projects is going to do the least damage to environments and ecosystems?" I am not certain about the answer to that question. But it seems ill-advised to me on the whole to be investing in energy infrastructure whose usage is (or should quickly become) dated and outmoded.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I'm glad it was rejected. We need to ease up on our oil use, and it was total crap that property owned by American citizens was going to be ceased and given to a private foreign entity for private financial gains.

 

[Brickjectivity]

There is already a pipeline. The proposal is to shorten the route not to create one where nothing exists.

 

[esmith]

Yes, but Obama said that he rejected the plan for basically (imo) for political reasons along with fuzzy reason. : From: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/07/u...ruction-of-keystone-xl-oil-pipeline.html?_r=0

“America is now a global leader when it comes to taking serious action to fight climate change,” Mr. Obama said in remarks from the White House. “ And, frankly, approving this project would have undercut that global leadership.

”
note: my emphasis

Now I agree he sited other reasons why, but the above statement indicates he seems to be putting his personal(?) philosophy into his decision. So, how would or would not construction this pipeline affect climate change. The tar sands oil is going to be used no matter if the pipeline is built or not. Now even though the number of future jobs realized by this pipeline is going to be small, it would seem to me that providing massive jobs to build this pipeline (at no monetary cost to the taxpayer) would help the economy. It would be a win win for workers. This decision makes absolutely no economy sense.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The tar sands oil is going to be used no matter if the pipeline is built or not.

That's iffy. The economic climate surrounding oil sands is making it so it's more expensive, has companies cutting back, and Keystone being rejected is projected to deal a hefty blow to the oil sands industry as a whole.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/03/b...ke-at-heart-of-oil-sands-production.html?_r=0
While production may keep humming along, the big question is whether oil sands producers can break even at current prices.

 

[metis]

The current administration offered a compromise which the oil companies rejected, namely to have that heavy oil refined in one or more of the northern states. Please realize that the companies want the Gulf refineries and ports for export purposes.

 

[esmith]

That's iffy. The economic climate surrounding oil sands is making it so it's more expensive, has companies cutting back, and Keystone being rejected is projected to deal a hefty blow to the oil sands industry as a whole.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/03/b...ke-at-heart-of-oil-sands-production.html?_r=0
While production may keep humming along, the big question is whether oil sands producers can break even at current prices.

However, from your linked article:

The enormous projects are just too difficult to switch off, and the companies must keep pumping crude to cover the sizable debt on their multibillion-dollar investments. They also don’t want to cede market share to producers in other countries.

This basically says that the oil will still be used. So, I would have to disagree with your premise that they will stop production. Therefore what is the safest and eco friendly means of transporting this oil. This should be the major factor on whether to build or not build this pipeline. Not Obama's personal objection to using fossil fuel, that even the State Department said will not have a significant impact on the environment.

 

[metis]

The issue of it being heavy oil is important. In western Michigan there's the Kalamazoo River, which got polluted with heavy oil, and two years later they're still trying to clean it. The problem is that it sinks to the bottom, so skimmers are totally ineffective.

 

[esmith]

The current administration offered a compromise which the oil companies rejected, namely to have that heavy oil refined in one or more of the northern states. Please realize that the companies want the Gulf refineries and ports for export purposes.

The cost of building refiners is high, the environmental restrictions on where to build are numerous and no one wants to live near a oil refinery (ever been to the area along the Texas coast?). Your comment that companies want the gulf refineries to export the oil has no bearing on the rejection of the pipeline. The oil is going to be refined. Now would you prefer to see the US make the money refining the oil and selling it to whomever, or another country making the profits? Now either the US or some other country (most likely China) is going to refine the oil. Again looking at in environmentally context, less fossil fuel will be burnt transporting refined oil vs crud oil. Another environmental issue, which country has less impact refining the oil (hint it's the US). So,, it still appears that the decision was based solely on Obama's political agenda as a "leader in fighting climate change".

 

[esmith]

The issue of it being heavy oil is important. In western Michigan there's the Kalamazoo River, which got polluted with heavy oil, and two years later they're still trying to clean it. The problem is that it sinks to the bottom, so skimmers are totally ineffective.

what means of transporting crude oil has the least chance of having an accident, a pipeline, trains, or tanker trucks? Yes, if you get a pipeline spill there will be more than if you have a train or truck spill. However, how often are you going to have a pipeline spill vs tankers? Remember now that the State Dept has already said that the pipeline will have little or no environmental issues.

 

[aoji]

Instead of an oil pipe line I would have rather seen a water pipe line between one of the Great lakes or where the Ohio meets the Mississippi and have the water drain at the Grand Canyon so that Mississippi flooding is controlled.

 

[metis]

The cost of building refiners is high, the environmental restrictions on where to build are numerous and no one wants to live near a oil refinery (ever been to the area along the Texas coast?). Your comment that companies want the gulf refineries to export the oil has no bearing on the rejection of the pipeline. The oil is going to be refined. Now would you prefer to see the US make the money refining the oil and selling it to whomever, or another country making the profits? Now either the US or some other country (most likely China) is going to refine the oil. Again looking at in environmentally context, less fossil fuel will be burnt transporting refined oil vs crud oil. Another environmental issue, which country has less impact refining the oil (hint it's the US). So,, it still appears that the decision was based solely on Obama's political agenda as a "leader in fighting climate change".

Again, this is heavy oil, so I would oppose that pipeline as well for that reason.

If you want that pipeline so bad, talk to the oil companies and see if they'll run it right by your house. And since you think "big government" has "too many regulations", then push Congress to get rid of the oil regulations as you most assuredly can trust the oil companies, right? .

And, yes, Obama also rejects it because of his correct feeling we need to get off the oil & coal teats as much as possible, but that's only to try and help a planet called "Earth". We cannot control what China may or may not do, but we can control we we can do.

 

[metis]

what means of transporting crude oil has the least chance of having an accident, a pipeline, trains, or tanker trucks? Yes, if you get a pipeline spill there will be more than if you have a train or truck spill. However, how often are you going to have a pipeline spill vs tankers? Remember now that the State Dept has already said that the pipeline will have little or no environmental issues.

There's a vast difference between what can happen if an oil truck or tanker tips over versus what can happen if a pipeline carry thousands of barrels a minute can do if there's a leak or breakage in the line. Also, the State Department cannot in any way promise there won't be problems along this line and that some of them could be severe.

The fact is that we have little to gain by it being built but potentially more to lose, such as we saw with some other oil accidents in the recent past. If we had to have it I would be all aboard-- but we really don't.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

There's a vast difference between what can happen if an oil truck or tanker tips over versus what can happen if a pipeline carry thousands of barrels a minute can do if there's a leak or breakage in the line. Also, the State Department cannot in any way promise there won't be problems along this line and that some of them could be severe.

There is plenty of precedence that suggests oil companies are not concerned with safety, they are not concerned with environmental degradation, and when something starts to go bad, it seems likely they'll ignore it, pay some people off, and instead of fixing it early will let the problem escalate until it becomes a disaster.

 

[esmith]

Again, this is heavy oil, so I would oppose that pipeline as well for that reason.

If you want that pipeline so bad, talk to the oil companies and see if they'll run it right by your house. And since you think "big government" has "too many regulations", then push Congress to get rid of the oil regulations as you most assuredly can trust the oil companies, right? .

And, yes, Obama also rejects it because of his correct feeling we need to get off the oil & coal teats as much as possible, but that's only to try and help a planet called "Earth". We cannot control what China may or may not do, but we can control we we can do.

You are basing your argument on a false premise that if the pipeline is not built that the oil will not be refined and used. Do you not agree? As far as the statement about "regulations". Even if regulations were relaxed building refineries up north is not economically feasible for private industry, in addition even if you did build those refineries the product would still have to be transported to distribution points and to ports for sale to overseas buyers. Your comment "getting off the teats of coal and oil" is an admirable but unrealistic dream at the present time. Developing countries want the cheapest energy available to raise the living standards of their population and developed countries like China also want the cheapest energy available. Do you not agree that if China could have additional oil as an energy source that their coal fired plants could be converted or shutdown. Their coal fired plants are coming under more and more objection from the population. Fossil fuel is going to stay until a less expensive source of energy is found. Thus the US and Canada have every right to use and sell their natural resources.

There's a vast difference between what can happen if an oil truck or tanker tips over versus what can happen if a pipeline carry thousands of barrels a minute can do if there's a leak or breakage in the line. Also, the State Department cannot in any way promise there won't be problems along this line and that some of them could be severe.

The fact is that we have little to gain by it being built but potentially more to lose, such as we saw with some other oil accidents in the recent past. If we had to have it I would be all aboard-- but we really don't.

Suggest you read and comment on the following:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesco...poison-for-crude-pipeline-rail-truck-or-boat/
in addition:
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/pipelines-are-safest-transportation-oil-and-gas-5716.html
note: you will have to click on the "Read Full Report" to download and read the PDF file.