Has Nebraska approved the path for the pipeline yet? As of the last showing up
on Google from August 2013, they have not and there is a lawsuit by landowners
contesting one proposal -- if the landowners win, the whole siting procedure
will have to be re-done. If not, and until Nebraska approves a path, this is a
moot issue. This is not something that should be considered until, at the very
least, its exact proposed location has been determined.
The real issue is whether the pipeline company should be prevented from building
it -- this is, supposedly, a free-market economy in which the govt steps in only
when necessary to protect the public interest. Supposedly. There is no good
reason, environmental or otherwise, for the govt. to block this pipeline.
About 15 years ago, BP pushed for reductions in the sulfur content of diesel
fuel in Australia. It meant that they would have to build more processing units
in their refineries in Australia. It would cost them. It seemed strange that
they would support this.But what they were thinking (and I have had
conversations with people from BP who confirmed this), BP's management knew
that they could build the extra processing capacity faster than the competition.
So they supported and pushed for the tighter restrictions because they could
make a tidy profit selling diesel at monopoly prices when the law came into
effect.I wonder, if somewhere down the Gulf Coast, if there is some
oil company, (maybe BP?) who is hoping that Canadian bitumen doesn't show
up so that they can keep their prices higher? The Obama administration is
keeping the competition out for them.
The people who are opposing the Keystone Pipeline is the Natural Resources
Defense Council. 15 years ago they had another initiative called "Dump
Diesel". They wanted to ban diesel fuel despite the fact that diesel fuel
produces 20-40% less carbon dioxide than gasoline when used in combustion
engines.Their website says that oil sands will be transportedi in
the pipeline, (no, bitumen will be transported, not sand). Their website also
says bitumen is toxic. It is less toxic than the asphalt being put on roads.
Lots of emotion and no sense.What is to be gained by blockading
Canada other than turning a friend into an enemy.The US
environmental movement has missed the boat. They are promoting supply side
environmentalism rather than demand side environmentalism, i.e. if they restrict
the supply the prices go up and then it forces people to cut back. With demand
side environmentalism convince people to cut back so the prices go down.Bitumen produces more diesel than the light oils that we are producing.
More diesel means cheaper diesel and more efficient engines.Stupidity and emotion are a bigger threat to the environment than any toxic
Re: ". . . 123 pipeline accidents since 2010.""None of
which had a significant environmental impact."@procuradorfiscal
- I guess you need to define "significant". Next week I will be up in
Edmonton discussing this very issue with a pipeline company. They seem to be
far more concerned about it then you, based on the amount of money they spend to
prevent such insignificant events.Just to give you an idea of what
we are talking about, read the following quote from EnergyWireEnergyWire spent four months collecting data, and found more than 6,000 spills
in 2012, Mike Soraghan reports:… together they add up to at
least 15.6 million gallons of oil, fracking fluid, wastewater and other liquids
reported spilled at production sites last year.That number is
“almost certianly an undercount,” Soraghan reports, because states
like Oklahoma often exclude the spill amounts.:End quote. - bottom
line, there are still numerous spills.... but the industry is getting better at
it. But is is safe to say you are one of the few who feels this is an
insignificant problem. Companies pay millions for us to use analytics to help
them resolve what they see very much as a signifiant issue.
The only oil America will receive from the pipeline will be the oil that spills,
which it inevitably will if the thing is built. That's what pipelines do.
Most, if not all, of the refined oil would be exported, which would do nothing
to lower gas prices here, and any jobs created would be temporary at best.
Canada has nothing to lose from this venture, and we have everything to lose.
This thing is a turkey and will never fly.
Open Minded MormonI won't respond to any so called Mormon who
believes he is open minded and therefore is accusing all other Mormons of being
close minded. Change your handle and maybe we will talk. P.S. I drive a
"Canada is telling the U.S administration it will see a sharp increase in
cross-border crude-oil shipments by rail if President Barack Obama fails to
approve the controversial Keystone XL pipeline."So Canada now
dictates our trade and border? I think not, Canada is not a threat or in a
position to threaten anyone.This comment is nothing but a bluff and hot
air from an "Oil Puppet" that only the gullibly would waste time
If this is such a wonderful idea.... refining oil for export.... why
doesn't Canada expand its capacity westward and do the refining in British
Columbia?Well it bears repeating. The Koch brothers. They control
the heavy oil refineries in Texas and they also control ALL of the republican
congress by threatening to primary incumbent republicans and back a challenger.
Does the trick.They just want to export it. Texas already has better
cheaper oil. It doesn't take a genius.
Is the Gulf Coast the only possible destination for this oil? If it is, then
build the pipeline, but if not then rail looks better because the railed oil
could go anywhere the relatively dense rail network goes.
Nice! Silo is taking MM to task!To all those others in support of
this pipeline:#1 Who is going to fill the jobs to construct and
maintain this pipeline? Illegals? I doubt the greedy oil company will offer good
salaries plus benefits to these workers.#2 What is happening to our own
oil? If we truly want to be energy independent, wouldn't it make sense to
use our own? Oh wait, it's our #1 export.
@happy2bhereclearfield, UTAnything that can help the U.S. rid
itself of any dependence on the Mid-East and its oil I'm for.======= Really?Do you drive cars that get 40+ mpg instead of
gas guzzling SUVs and trucks?Most Utahans don't.The
Germans and Japanese [who pay $5-$8 a gallon] have always made cars that get
better gas mileage than American cars do.Because they have to.They also don't have to start wars and invade other countries either.
Anything that can help the U.S. rid itself of any dependence on the Mid-East and
its oil I'm for. If this pipline can do that, then I'm for it. By
the way, it has to be much easier to clean up oil spilled on ground than it is
to clean it out of the ocean. And, pipelines have been running pretty safe up to
now. Plus, if there is a leak, then simply shut down the line. Much easier
than closing a hole deep down in the ocean or stopping a leaking tanker ship.
@mountanmanNo response to the question. Not surprising. Since the
story of TransCanada's use of eminent domain didn't get covered by the
vain-stream media (aka am radio), I didn't honestly expect any reasoned
response.So by means of deduction, we can assume you're fine
with Americans losing property rights to a private, foreign entity when the
potential benefit is jobs, fewer tankers and a economic improvement. Good to
know where you stand on private property rights. Never mind that the Keystone
XL has no guarantee of any of those things. Canada has no
obligation to sell to the US if another country will pay more...welcome to the
global market. Permanent Job gains, if any, provided by the XL pipeline will be
offset by job losses on competing pipelines elsewhere, not to mention shipping
job losses from those pesky oil tankers, dock workers, etc.By all
means though, continue to paint complex issues surrounding Keystone as
Democrat/Republican, even though the facts don't support that at all.
Re: ". . . 123 pipeline accidents since 2010."None of which
had a significant environmental impact.Face it -- oil is simply not
a serious pollutant on land. It doesn't percolate through the ground.
It's lighter than the water in any aquifer it may touch, and thus, floats
on top. It's easily and economically cleaned up. It's just not a big
deal.The real issue for radical "greenies" is that they
believe they can somehow control Canada's use of its oil, forcing Canada to
leave its oil in the ground. They can't, of course, but they don't
seem to understand that.Though the rest of world, including the UN,
is moving on from global warming alarmism, flat-earth "greenies" appear
incapable of doing so.
The statement about only 100 employees watching the pipeline was quite a
surprise. There would also be many thousands of American employees operating
those refineries on the Gulf coast that will refine the oil into usable
products. My grandfather worked all his life in one of those Texas refineries,
and we were proud of his work.
@ Silo. There are already millions of miles of pipeline transporting billions of
gallons of oil and natural gas all over the US! What's your problem with
another one that will actually improve our country's economy, provide jobs
and be much more safe than oil tankers crossing the oceans purchased from our
enemies? How do you think high tension power line grids bring your electricity
to you across thousands of miles of private property? Go turn on your light
switch or your gas furnace and ask yourself, "how did that gas and
electricity get to me"?
@mountanmanYou seem just fine with a private Canadian company being
allowed to use eminent domain to seize the property of Americans. Why is that?
When even the Texas Tea Party opposes the actions by TransCanada, there's
more to the story that you seem willing to acknowledge.Do the 800+
private landowners in Texas that will be affected by Keystone XL phase 3 have
rights as American citizens? What about those private landowners in the other
states? Do they not have rights?Something has gone wrong when the
options faced by these citizens is:a. grant easement, knowing it means
indemnifying TransCanada from any liability in the event of a leak/accident,
or...b. be forced to turn over their land due to eminent domain granted to
a foreign, private companyThe fact that you blindly support these
actions while blustering constantly about the rights of US citizens simply
illustrates the level of hypocrisy you'll embrace.Brilliant
'Conservatives', just brilliant!
Mountainman.... that oil will be sold on the open markets regardless. The
threat is just stating what will happen regardless if it come to market in
Houston, or Vancouver. The report on the pipeline already acknowledges that
most of that oil will end up for overseas export. That threat on states what
most knowledgable people know is going to happen anyway.So if that
makes democrats brilliant.... that they actually are aware we operate in a free
market for oil... I guess they are brilliant. One would hope those who
don't get it... would figure it out.... soon.
In my previous comment, it is 123 pipeline accidents since 2010.
@procuradorfiscal"There are no significant environmental
impacts."I think what you meant to say was "Other than the
123 pipe accidents spilling thousands of barrels of crude oil, there are no
significant environment impacts." The info isn't hard to find if you
would like to look it up yourself."And they won't be swayed
in the slightest by what's clearly best for America."Any
why is bringing Canadian oil to Texas clearly the "best for America?"
Are they going to cut the US a deal and let us buy their oil for less than
market value, or is it just closer to the Panama Canal so the tankers don't
have as far to go? How does that benefit the US?
UtahBlue. Canada has already told us that if we don't buy their oil, they
will sell their oil to China that is willing to pay top dollar so they can use
it to increase their economy. In the meantime, the US will lose out on millions
of primary and secondary jobs that all require fossil fuel energy, like it or
not. "Made in China" will be seen even more on goods we buy! Brilliant
Democrats, just brilliant!
Canada has access to both the Atlantic AND the Pacific Oceans.Let them
build their own pipeline.
Love it.... per mountainman, we have two options, and two options only. Build a
pipeline across our country, or, buy our from terrorist nations. If we
don't build this pipeline, they will just shut down production in Canada.
That reserve will just sit there, doing nothing.Does anyone really
believe this problem is really that black and white? Really?
Re: "Why should the US risk the environmental impacts of the pipeline when
there is no benefit for the country?"There are no significant
environmental impacts.The only impacts are on the Obama
regime's relations with its radical green wing, that foolishly believes
they can browbeat Canada into leaving their oil in the ground.This
dispute is not about the environment, at all. It's strictly Democrat
"big-tent," vote-buying politics. And they won't be swayed in the
slightest by what's clearly best for America.
All the jobs and benefits aside, and trust me the oil sands operations are
absolutely massive benefits to the US, I can't see why people don't
see this pipeline as a must have simply on the basis of supply stability. If
things go sideways in the middle east, and who could deny that possibility,
wouldn't it be great to have a large capacity in place with a ready supply
of energy at the other end?
Perhaps Putin could step in and solve this problem.
This is Canadian oil. Let them bear the burden of getting it to market. The
pipeline will not make fuel any cheaper in the US, if anything it will increase
the price to US buyers. The pipeline is a sham.
The pipeline has always been proposed as a way to ship the oil from Canada to
Asia and Europe. The Canadian company has said repeatedly that none of the oil
will be used in North America and is for export only.Why should the
US risk the environmental impacts of the pipeline when there is no benefit for
the country? The pipeline would employ approximately 15,000 people
during construction, afterwards, it is projected by the company to employ less
than 100 people to monitor the line.100 employees people. That is
all that this line will produce for the US economy, no oil, no gas and basically
no employees once complete, yet there are people that are screaming we need to
do this line.I want to know why?If there is no benefit
at all, why do we want it? If the answer is because Obama is against it, then
your answer is wrong.
Rather than buy oil from our neighbor, lets ship our oil from OPEC (and fund
terrorism) across the ocean in tankers! Brilliant, Democrats, just brilliant!
Quote from article:"The pipeline would deliver oil to the U.S. that is
likelier to be shipped abroad after being refined into fuel and other products
than it is to be consumed here."Ya, not a priority for me then.
So why are rank and file conservatives in such a huff about this?
Take look at where this type of oil has leaked from pipeline failures. There are
plenty of examples. Google "tar sands leak" and pay attention. Now
imagine that happening all across the nation.No.
If this is such a wonderful idea.... refining oil for export.... why
doesn't Canada expand its capacity westward and do the refining in British
Columbia? Yes, there is a large mountain range to cross... but that is not the
reason Canada doesn't want this oil refined on their own land. Heck, they
could build a refinery right there Alberta if all those economic benefits were
so wonderful.think about it. If this is such a good deal, why is
Canada so willing to have the US take a slice of the pie? Are you really
thinking that they are just so good hearted up North they don't want to
grab all the profits for themselves? I can assure you, they are wonderfully
nice people, I will be up in Edmonton next week doing some work with a Canadian
pipeline company. But that isn't the reason they are not investing in