Keystone XL pipeline

[bush_cheney2004]

It is extremely naive to believe that the Democratic Party in the U.S. has not been and is not currently supporting petroleum production in general and the KXL specifically:

Senate Democrats know rejecting Keystone XL will hurt their chances. Mark Begich of Alaska, Mary L. Landrieu of Louisiana, Pryor of Arkansas and Hagan of North Carolina — all of whom are up for re-election in 2014 — joined retiring Sen. Max Baucus of Montana in signing a bipartisan letter recently urging Obama to sign off on the pipeline.

...The politics goes beyond senators. Labor leaders are giving a strong backing because they believe Keystone XL will create 9,000 new good-paying construction jobs. Nine thousand is an accurate number, because that is exactly the number of construction workers it took to build the phase Obama approved in 2012 and will start delivering shipments to Cushing, Okla., this month.

The AFL-CIO said: “[T]he privately-financed Keystone XL pipeline project is projected to create tens of thousands of U.S. jobs in construction and manufacturing ... workers from all over the United States would benefit from the project.”

http://www.rollcall.com/news/senate_democrats_need_the_keystone_xl_commentary-230262-1.html

[Mighty AC]

Right because in your delusional world the Republicans could not be taking this position because it the morally correct one? It has to be because they are "bought" and paid for. I really find attitudes like yours pathetic. The fact is that almost everyone in public life *believes* they are promoting policies that serve the greater good.

BS and quit the fake outrage and moral high horse crap. We see politicians adopting the position of their backers all the time. This is especially true in the US where far more corporate money is involved in politics.

[Mighty AC]

Because it is a choice....an informed....purposeful...choice. There will always be leaks....too bad. The money is certainly not yours (or mine) to spend on more risk mitigation. Why aren't opponents of the current pipeline route ponying up the money to pay for a change ?

So the corporations that will benefit from this pipe will see massive profits, yet you want the public to pay to protect itself from them? What are you on?

I don't think it's unreasonable for government to require adequate safety precautions for resources like critical water supplies in rapidly drying areas. In this case it simply requires rerouting or secondary safeguards in specific areas. This will certainly add to the cost; so if this makes the project too expensive, then it shouldn't continue. However, allowing this project to proceed as is, would be irresponsible and should not be an option.

[bush_cheney2004]

So the corporations that will benefit from this pipe will see massive profits, yet you want the public to pay to protect itself from them? What are you on?

Massive profits also means local, state, and federal tax revenue, employment payroll checks, expanded transport infrastructure, refinery and export capacity, economic growth, etc., etc. What part of reality do you continue to ignore ?

I don't think it's unreasonable for government to require adequate safety precautions for resources like critical water supplies in rapidly drying areas. In this case it simply requires rerouting or secondary safeguards in specific areas. This will certainly add to the cost; so if this makes the project too expensive, then it shouldn't continue. However, allowing this project to proceed as is, would be irresponsible and should not be an option.

Not your call from Canada, if you don't mind. Wait...it's Canada that wants the pipeline most of all, as it refuses to build more east-west pipeline infrastructure and domestic refining capacity. Nebraska opponents will have their day in court, but that's all they will get.

The U.S. already has nearly 2,500,000 miles of oil/dilbit/gas pipelines.

[TimG]

We see politicians adopting the position of their backers all the time.

Which came first: the chicken or the egg? i.e. did the backers support a politician because of their views or did the politician adopt the views of the backers? You can't know. You just assume.

That said, if you want to say that democratic politicians opposing the pipelines are also bought and paid for by wealthy carpet baggers who want to profit from "green" regulation then I don't have much to complain about your description. What I objected to is the hypocrisy in the implication that politicians opposing the pipelines not "bought and paid for" (when they are based on your definition).

Edited November 14, 2014 by TimG

[Mighty AC]

Massive profits also means local, state, and federal tax revenue, employment payroll checks, expanded transport infrastructure, refinery and export capacity, economic growth, etc., etc. What part of reality do you continue to ignore?

There will be some temporary construction jobs and a some maintenance jobs on the pipe, but the bulk of tax revenue will be realized in Texas and Alberta. Residents of those two areas will see some real benefits, yet the people of Montana, the Dakotas, Nebraska, Kansas and Oklahoma all have to live with the risks of a spill. Why should residents of those states have to cough up the funds to protect themselves from the oil players in Texas and Alberta? Shouldn't those who will benefit pay the appropriate safety costs?

The U.S. already has nearly 2,500,000 miles of oil/dilbit/gas pipelines.

I know and there have been countless leaks and problems. We know this new pipe will leak so why build it right through the heart of the most important water source in the midwest? It just makes sense to force the major players to bear the cost of diverting either east or west of the Ogallala.

[bush_cheney2004]

.....Why should residents of those states have to cough up the funds to protect themselves from the oil players in Texas and Alberta? Shouldn't those who will benefit pay the appropriate safety costs?

Because that's how interstate commerce works and is protected in the U.S. There are criminal and civil liabilities that are settled by insurance policies and/or court proceedings in such instances. Petroleum and natural gas products are used extensively in all those states, to great economic benefit.

I know and there have been countless leaks and problems. We know this new pipe will leak so why build it right through the heart of the most important water source in the midwest? It just makes sense to force the major players to bear the cost of diverting either east or west of the Ogallala.

The risk is way overblown given the past history of numerous leaks in other "important" and "sensitive" areas. Concern acknowledged...carefully considered...and evaluated. Pipeline construction will begin once a permit is approved. Next....

[On Guard for Thee]

American voters and politicians fighting to build a leaky pipeline through the largest aquifer in the mid-west. The first Keystone pipe, opened only 4 years ago, leaked 14 times in it's first 12 months. Why bother building around the most critical fresh water supply in the area when a few dollars can be saved... sigh.

Let's not forget the Enbridge line that dumped well over a million gallons into the Kalamazoo River. That thing was leaking for 18 hours before anything was done and only then because some guy in Michigan saw oil flooding down the street. Where's the safety system there?

[Mighty AC]

Because that's how interstate commerce works and is protected in the U.S. There are criminal and civil liabilities that are settled by insurance policies and/or court proceedings in such instances. Petroleum and natural gas products are used extensively in all those states, to great economic benefit.

Oh come on...states being able to sue when a pipe leaks or benefiting from the existence of petroleum products is not compensation for risking their fresh water supply. The flyover states are getting screwed by the oil companies and the Republican sellouts.

This will be a better deal for Canadians though. Well temporarily. In the short term we won't dump bitumen all over BC and the coast. However, when the Ogallala is contaminated it will just hasten the inevitable bulk diversion of water from Canada and the great lakes to the US.

Your former dufus puppet pres, Dubya Bush, even said "in Texas, water is more valuable than oil."

[sharkman]

At the end of the day, the oil is going to go somewhere. As much as the environazis can't realize that simple fact, it's the truth. Canada is either going to sell the oil to the US, who can then reduce purchases to dictator regimes who couldn't give jack squat about the environment. Or Canada is going to sell the oil to China, who pollutes the environment like a drunken sailor. The US has strict laws protecting the environment, does China? Sometimes all you can do is laugh at the enviro extremists.

Edited November 15, 2014 by sharkman

[Mighty AC]

At the end of the day, the oil is going to go somewhere. As much as the environazis can't realize that simple fact, it's the truth. Canada is either going to sell the oil to the US, who can then reduce purchases to dictator regimes who couldn't give jack squat about the environment. Or Canada is going to sell the oil to China, who pollutes the environment like a drunken sailor. The US has strict laws protecting the environment, does China? Sometimes all you can do is laugh at the enviro extremists.

The US pipeline route is through the most important aquifer in the US. It can be moved around this critical fresh water source, but it will cost a little more. Is it extreme to insist the multi-billion dollar corps spend a few bucks to avoid contaminating dwindling western fresh water?

[bush_cheney2004]

Oh come on...states being able to sue when a pipe leaks or benefiting from the existence of petroleum products is not compensation for risking their fresh water supply. The flyover states are getting screwed by the oil companies and the Republican sellouts.

But it's not just Republicans...Democrats and a majority of U.S. voters support the pipeline.

This will be a better deal for Canadians though. Well temporarily. In the short term we won't dump bitumen all over BC and the coast. However, when the Ogallala is contaminated it will just hasten the inevitable bulk diversion of water from Canada and the great lakes to the US.

Your former dufus puppet pres, Dubya Bush, even said "in Texas, water is more valuable than oil."

And your current "dufus" government has been begging the U.S. for this pipeline going back years. Far from "temporarily", Canadians will get to continue the bitching about high gas prices, lack of refining capacity, and lack of east-west pipeline capacity.

[On Guard for Thee]

At the end of the day, the oil is going to go somewhere. As much as the environazis can't realize that simple fact, it's the truth. Canada is either going to sell the oil to the US, who can then reduce purchases to dictator regimes who couldn't give jack squat about the environment. Or Canada is going to sell the oil to China, who pollutes the environment like a drunken sailor. The US has strict laws protecting the environment, does China? Sometimes all you can do is laugh at the enviro extremists.

You don't quite get that the XL has nothing to do with selling oil to the US? That's an important fact you should be aware of.

[bush_cheney2004]

More Dems are abandoning previous "No" positions on Keystone XL...and President Obama:

WASHINGTON – Three of Minnesota’s freshly re-elected Democrats broke with their party Friday to approve a measure that directs construction of the long-delayed Keystone pipeline, which would lug crude oil from Canada to the Gulf Coast.

Reps. Rick Nolan, Collin Peterson and Tim Walz supported the construction, along with Republican Reps. Erik Paulsen, John Kline and Michele Bachmann. The measure heads to the Senate next week; if passed, however, it faces an uncertain future on President Obama’s desk.

Though the pipeline would not run through Minnesota, it has become a flash point in the national debate on balancing job creation, energy independence and protecting the nation’s natural resources. Nolan, who won re-election by one percentage point Nov. 4, was criticized on the campaign trail by his GOP opponent Stewart Mills for earlier votes against the pipeline.

The congressman, who will enter his second term, said he’d support the pipeline if it were constructed using domestic resources, including U.S. steel.

[jacee]

You don't quite get that the XL has nothing to do with selling oil to the US? That's an important fact you should be aware of.

Obama gets that:

http://m.ourwindsor.ca/news-story/5030751-barack-obama-appears-poised-to-use-veto-to-stop-keystone-xl-pipeline/

I have to constantly push back against this idea that, somehow, the Keystone pipeline is either this massive jobs bill for the United States or is somehow lowering gas prices, Obama told reporters during an overseas news conference in Burma.

"Understand what this project is: It is providing the ability of Canada to pump their oil, send it down to the Gulf, where it will be sold everywhere else. It doesnt have an impact on U.S. gas prices.

Edited November 15, 2014 by jacee

[sharkman]

You gott love how willing Obama is to say anything depending on his needs. Leading up to the 2012 election, here's one of his lies to the voter in order to manipulate:

“Right now, a company called TransCanada has applied to build a new pipeline to speed more oil from Cushing to state-of-the-art refineries down on the Gulf Coast,” the president said, standing in front of rows of green-tinted pipes for an outdoor speech on a chilly, overcast morning at a TransCanada pipe storage yard near Cushing, Okla.

“And today, I’m directing my administration to cut through the red tape, break through the bureaucratic hurdles and make this project a priority, to go ahead and get it done,” he said.

Now that he can't save the Senate and doesn't have any more elections to hide from, we are finally going to hear what he really thinks. And not just "caught in an unguarded moment" gems, like when he told the Russian official that he'd have more flexibility to maneuver after the election, something else that hit the headlines in March of 2012.

Now that he's forced to actually sign or veto a Keystone bill, out comes the full court press on how evil it is. The thing is, he's talked out of both sides of his mouth for so long, anyone with critical thinking skills can tell he's got issues with the truth.

[jacee]

http://m.newsok.com/pipeline-begins-moving-oil-out-of-cushing/article/3926293

oops sharkman:

That southern leg is already in use.

It't the northern leg across the border that Obama's talking about now.

http://www.transcanada.com/keystone.html

http://www.transcanada.com/cushing.html

Edited November 15, 2014 by jacee

[sharkman]

Whoops, I eat crow on that one, for some reason I thought that the 2012 Obama statement included the northern leg into Canada.

[overthere]

Whoops, I eat crow on that one, for some reason I thought that the 2012 Obama statement included the northern leg into Canada.

Not only that, Obama was supporting something that he had little to do with. The Cushing-to-Gulf sector of Keystone did not require his approval since it did not cross international borders.

[Smallc]

You don't quite get that the XL has nothing to do with selling oil to the US? That's an important fact you should be aware of.

That's a nonsensical claim that has been disproven more than once. It would make no sense to send most of the oil anywhere but to the US, where it's already going by rail.

[On Guard for Thee]

That's a nonsensical claim that has been disproven more than once. It would make no sense to send most of the oil anywhere but to the US, where it's already going by rail.

Don't think so. Just ask yourself why the US would even want tarsands oil (expensive) when they are awash in their own. It's going where it's going to get to a refinery, and more importantly to tidewater.

[Smallc]

US domestic capacity does not and will not meet demand for at least 15 - 20 years, and it's unlikely then. You're right about it going where it's going to get to a refinery, but that's about it. There's no reason to send the bulk anywhere but into continental North America.

PS - do you think that shale oil is cheap?

[Mighty AC]

But it's not just Republicans...Democrats and a majority of U.S. voters support the pipeline.

The sandy, oil sludge is going to be sold, so I support pipeline transport as well. I just don't support it being built through a critical freshwater source. The money is available to do it right, but owned politicians are allowing the bar to be lowered.

And your current "dufus" government has been begging the U.S. for this pipeline going back years.

Our dufus government has also been gutting environmental protections, weakening regulations, attacking environmental charities and has stopped collecting water data all to make it easier for oil companies to build, operate and spill without repercussions.

Business has to be done, resources have to sold. I get it. However, the days were we trash and plunder the natural world for short term gain should have already passed. This project could be done right and still be incredibly profitable; unfortunately, the CPC and GOP have fought hard for low standards.

Edited November 16, 2014 by Mighty AC

[bush_cheney2004]

....Business has to be done, resources have to sold. I get it. However, the days were we trash and plunder the natural world for short term gain should have already passed. This project could be done right and still be incredibly profitable; unfortunately, the CPC and GOP have fought hard for low standards.

Why ? It will only be feasible, let alone profitable, if the initial capital investment is available now. A Canadian company is building the pipeline, not Exxon. Hell, if it was that easy (and stupendously profitable) while keeping all the tree huggers happy then Canada would have already built its own east-west pipeline(s) and refineries.

Edited November 16, 2014 by bush_cheney2004

[Mighty AC]

Why ? It will only be feasible, let alone profitable, if the initial capital investment is available now. A Canadian company is building the pipeline, not Exxon. Hell, if it was that easy (and stupendously profitable) while keeping all the tree huggers happy then Canada would have already built its own east-west pipeline(s) and refineries.

Canada doesn't own the bitumen, oil companies do. Many already own and run refineries, that have excess capacity to process the dirty heavy tars produced in Alberta and Venezuela. I suppose these companies do not see the economic benefit to adding even more, expensive, low margin refining capacity in Alberta...where the finished products would still have to be moved to shipping ports. Hence a pipe to Texas makes sense, but not through the heart of the Ogallala.