E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
TransCanada Corp. via Reuters file
The Keystone XL oil pipeline, pictured under construction Jan. 18, 2012, in North Dakota.
This story has been updated to reflect a correction.
Construction of the controversial Keystone XL pipeline would create "numerous" and "substantial" impacts on the environment, the State Department said Friday in a draft environmental impact statement. But the project is a better bet than any of the alternatives, it said in essentially clearing the project to go ahead.
The report concluded that the Canadian synthetic crude oil the pipeline is slated to transport into the U.S. produces 17 percent more greenhouse gases than natural crude oil already refined here. In addition, it said the construction phase of the project would result in carbon dioxide emissions equiavalent to about 626,000 passenger vehicles operating for a full year.
Without directly saying so, the report signaled the State Department's belief that the pipeline should go ahead, concluding that other modes of transportation would have the same impacts and that proposed alternatives — including an above-ground route and a smaller-diameter pipe — "were not reasonable."
And on a central issue of discussion, it concluded that blocking the pipeline wouldn't make any difference in the U.S.'s high consumption of oil.
Reaction from environmental groups was swift.
"The Sierra Club is outraged by the State Department's deeply flawed analysis today on Keystone XL," the Sierra Club tweeted.
Gene Karpinski, president of the League of Conservation Voters, said the report failed to appreciate the pipeline's potential effect on climate change.
"People who think our climate wouldn't be negatively impacted by Keystone XL have their heads in the (tar) sands," he said in a statement. "... LCV will work to ensure that the millions of Americans opposed to this dangerous pipeline have their voices heard during the comment period and that Keystone XL is rejected once and for all."
But House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, welcomed the report, which he said "makes clear there is no reason for this critical pipeline to be blocked one more day."
"After four years of needless delays, it is time for President Obama to stand up for middle-class jobs and energy security and approve the Keystone pipeline," Boehner said.
The environmental statement is only a draft, not a final decision whether to greenlight the project. A public comment period of 45 days is next.
A final decision on the $5.3 billion pipeline, a project of TransCanada Corp., has been pending for more than four years as environmental activists battle to kill it, contending that it contributes to the U.S.'s dependence on "dirty fuel" that generates higher emissions than crude oil refined in the U.S.
The pipeline would transport synthetic crude oil from oil sands in northeastern Alberta to refineries running along the spine of the U.S. all the way down to Texas. Along the way, the 2,000-page report said, it could also:
- Disturb highly erodible soil along nearly half of the 875-mile U.S. segment — including 4,715 acres of "prime farmland soil."
- Degrade streams and other surface water.
- Encroach on the habitats of 13 federally protected species or species being considered for that designation, including the whooping crane and the greater sage grouse.
- Be susceptible to potentially disastrous leaks and spill.
On the other side of the balance, the report noted the potential for economic development and growth in impoverished communities along the pipeline's pathway, saying it could create about 42,000 jobs during the construction period, about 3,900 of them directly employed in construction activities. The report noted that after construction is completed, the project would generate 35 permanent and 15 temporary jobs, primarily for routine inspections, maintenance and repairs.
President Barack Obama will have the final say on the project, which is being reviewed by the State Department, not the Environmental Protection Agency, because the pipeline would cross national borders. Obama signaled his support for the southern section of the line last year, but he gave environmentalists a measure of hope in January, when he promised to do more to fight climate change in his inaugural address.
Tens of thousands of protesters jammed the National Mall in Washington on Feb. 17 to urge Obama to reject pipeline. They adopted the slogan "Forward" — cribbing Obama's own campaign slogan.
The final decision will be a crucial one for Canada, which may need to look elsewhere for new energy markets if the pipeline is rejected.
Tom Capra, Catherine Chomiak and Frank Thorp of NBC News contributed to this report. Follow M. Alex Johnson on Twitter and Facebook.
Watch US News videos on NBCNews.com
This story reflects the following correction: This story misstated the State Department's projection of the number of construction jobs the Keystone XL pipeline project would create. The department's draft environmental impact statement said the project could create about 42,000 jobs during the construction period, about 3,900 of them directly employed in construction activities. The report noted that after construction is completed, the project would generate 35 permanent and 15 temporary jobs, primarily for routine inspections, maintenance and repairs.
This story was originally published on Fri Mar 1, 2013 5:50 PM EST
Leave a Comment:
I have been told... That this is good for the U.S. ... Besides I want it... Never saw a promise I liked to keep... This will create job... So , I mean no it won't destroy the environment that is what the Republicans are doing... So I'm going to have my wife sign this bill... so I can't be blamed for it... President Obama.
bubba...the jobs in the U.S. are temporary just to build the pipline. I want to hear from those in Canada who have been exposed to this type of drilling. I have heard and read that the contamination of communities ground water and other elements is immense. I want to know why Canada is not doing this within their own boarders. Why do they need to come through our prestine landscape just to profit with a temporary gain to us. The crude will not benefit us in any manner as we don't use it Canada intends to sell it via our ports.
It already came out today that the crude will be sold to Asia. But as we want to keep up our idiot consumption habits, I suppose it's "fairer" that we foul our own nest instead of places like Nigeria. The problem I have with that is the livestock and wildlife that will suffer.
The Republicans have been howling for this for years. They block every public transportation effort. I guess they think the rich will take them with them when the crap hits the fan. I'd love to see it when the politicians are thrown to the mobs to give the wealthy time to escape. It's not the first time in history that it's happened. Stupid humans.
Hpw can we be depending on a fuel source that has no other purpose than to be transported through our country, polluting our air, refined in Texas and Louisiana, to be shipped to South America and China? It is not be trucked to your corner gas station. The money is not going into OUR Treasury. it is going into the coffers of the oil companies and the CANADIAN Government.
Well said, Chuck.
You really think I support this???? I just wounder how much of an illegal kick back President Obama got for this.
No better way? What a crock of crap!
TransCanada says in their website that they want to build "Keystone XL, the 1897-km (1179-mile) pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to Cushing, OK."
Now, here's something to think about: Why don't they run the pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to Vancouver, British Columbia, a distance of about 600 miles, as the crow flies?
Oh, Canadian Rockies in the way? Then divert to Calgary and take a lower route west. Or go east to Hudson Bay and then tanker it out, a distance of about 800 miles.
Canada could keep all those wonderful jobs to itself and have its own pipeline in its own country.
Kinda makes you wonder just what the hell is up with this whole Keystone XL boondoggle and why TransCanada and the Republican party are so eager to foist their pipeline off on us, doesn't it?
State Department admits Keystone environmental impact but says there's no better way
Yes, there is a better way. Let the Canadians build a pipeline to THEIR west coast. Most of this oil/oil products will be going to China anyways so let the Canadians live in THEIR own polution. But you know why they won't build a pipeline to THEIR west coast right? THEIR Indian tribes have told the Canadian government: NOT THROUGH OUR LANDS!!!!!!
@Mary......Simple. The Canadians don't need the oil for fuel, but they need the money. If not us, they will ship it overseas. Piping the oil to the US is much cheaper.
Why do they need all that money with a population barely 31 million people? Greed, disguised as free healthcare. Canada produces 3.7 million barrels of oil per day. They need every drop of it because their "free" healthcare system eats up an incredible 69% of their federal budget.
Bottom line is Canada is no friend of the environment. They export the oil and brags about how little greenhouse gases they emit. Remember the hell they raised about acid rain from the US? It was the sour crude that they sold us that was responsible for the acid.
It'll be interesting if this comes to fruition. Then the American people will see just how few permanent jobs this will create. And they'll see the price of oil remain the same or go up while refinery capacity remains unchanged. Then they'll know what a crock of BS the conservative claims have been all along.
People need to read the actual Summary of Impact from the report. Being kind, the NBC story completely misrepresents the report. Bluntly, the NBC story is patently false. The actual report reads: "[t]he analyses of potential impacts associated with construction and normal operation of the proposed Project suggest that there would be no significant impacts to most resources along the proposed Project route assuming" Keystone complies with the law and the terms of its permits. This couldn't be anymore clearly opposite to what NBC reported and wants people to believe.
I have noticed the president of the Sierra Club and his top cronies don't live in cheap low impact yurts. So just how committed are you to the environment there mister six or seven figures from the environmental sheep? What a bunch of left handed garbage.
There has to be a balance between stewardship and the needs of people otherwise we should all move out doors and destroy every level of the grid. The fact that so many of you greenies are here on the Internet shows exactly how committed you are to the environment. Did you enjoy a warm shower today, make coffee in your expensive espresso machine, trot on down to Starbucks for a cup? Yeah I thought so.
Next
The construction phase of the project would result in carbon dioxide emissions equivalent to about 626,000 passenger vehicles operating for a full year.
How much carbon dioxide emissions will a 747 jumbo jet and two escort fighter jets cause on a round trip from let's say Virginia to Hawaii.
Screw this stupid Keystone pipeline.
ALL the oil goes from Canada to China.
ALL the profit goes to ultra-wealthy investors many of which are not in the US.
It's the biggest dumbest boondoogle since the Bridge to Nowhere.
.
Anyone else notice the fake date on the photo? That's supposed to be Jan in South Dakota? Yeah, I don't think so.
Canada wants to use our refinerys for processing this crude since they do not have capacity for it and then it will be sold for use to foreign countries. Not exactly correct since Supertankers haul crude oil not refined gasoline. They will only process what gets sold here which is planned at present to be none. This crude is to be shipped overseas to foreign countries under current plans. Next point is there is no excess capacity at refinerys as currently they are all running at maximum output so unless Keystone or someone else builds a refinery it can't get used here.
That's right, screw the Environment and let's help fuel everybody else's economies. We need neither of the two.
This goes to show that regardless of who's in Office, oil is still the basis of the world economies. And there is no really strong intent to deviate from that. Hopefully that will cease with the last drop of oil and ownership of green energies by the current energy owners. A little legislation goes a long way.
@ Ryan Dunn...........Global Warming don't ya know :-)
This is like rape.
You get shoved to the floor, have your clothes ripped off and get penetrated without any lube or foreplay.
It does not matter what your politics are, its coming in and that's that. So, just lay back and take it people! This is not a democracy anymore, this is the ultra rich MAKING us do what THEY want so they can have their grotesque lifestyle of gluttony, waste, extravagance, etc, etc......and every member of the US Congress is a part of that club, bought and paid for by big business.
These ultra rich @!$%#s truly do not care about what environmental problems this creates, most of it can be hidden in the short term and the very worst adverse effects will not happen until their dead! So, why should they care if in the year 2150 there are no fish in the oceans, no crops in the fields and humanity is experiencing a death rate 10-20 times its birth rate? THEY DON"T!!! If we do not take back our country, our planet from the wolves in sheep's clothing then we are truly doomed and mother Earth will rid herself of the cancer known as humanity.
The 'reasons' the Canadians don't want to built it in their country going West, is the immense cost of going through mountain ranges, and the fact that the native indian reservations there have blocked passage through their territory. The 'funny' thing is, 50% of the pipe is being made in India and Canada, and shipped over, disenfranchising the American steel industry yet again, with several 'accidents' from bad weld seals, cracks and spillage already. The 'thousands' of jobs are mostly temp/6 months at most. The tar sand is NOT going anywhere IN the U.S., it will be processed in TX as diesel and sent OUTSIDE the U.S., most of which will be to China. Gas prices WILL rise in the U.S. instead of fall, the enviroment (air,water,soil) in surrounding areas will be ruined, lives will be lost in nature as the draft report says, but it DOESN'T say what the impact will be to HUMANS, other than 'a little more CO2.' The GOP have thrown so many toxic balls in the air expecting the average person not to catch even a small percentage of them, while the rest that fall to the ground, bounce back up and catches everyone unaware, and then it will be too late.
Well, well, well. another special interest group all up in arms because they believed their messiah would keep his promises. HAHAHAHAHAHA. Isn't it ironic?
"A final decision on the $5.3 billion pipeline, a project of TransCanada Corp., has been pending for more than four years as environmental activists battle to kill it, contending that it contributes to the U.S.'s dependence on "dirty fuel" that generates higher emissions than crude oil refined in the U.S."
It's not the analysis that is flawed - it's the mistaken idea by conservationists that blocking the pipeline would prevent the Canadian oil from being used that is flawed. It WILL be used - either by us (giving us energy security from a friendly source) or by the Chinese, who would love to have a reliable source for their oil requirements.
No fish in the oceans by 2150?
No crops in the fields?
A death rate 10-20 times the birth rate?
"Mother earth will rid herself of the cancer known as humanity?
Start with the no fish bullsh*t-you got a link to a CREDIBLE source for that claim? A published,peer reviewed study or two?
Didn't think so.
No crops in the fields? More kool-aid drinking bullsh*t-big ag-despite all the downfalls-will NEVER allow there to NOT be successful harvests-too much cash invested.
A death "rate 10-20 times the birth rate"-maybe-remember a group of people called the baby boomers? Born right after WWII and the Korean and start of the Vietnam wars?-lasted from 1945-to 1965? Birth rates were much,much higher than recent birth rates-about 10-20 times higher-so yes-theres a good chance we will see that -
However-it will have absolutely NOTHING to do with your anti-human enviro-nazi bullsh*t-nothing at all-it's a natural thing-birth rates slowed considerably-therefore-at some point in the near future-the baby boomers will begin their massive die off.
You are full of sh*t sir-you have drunk the -enviro-nazi kook-aid in massive amounts-you have swallowed their line of lies,half-truths and obfuscation compleltely-without ever thinking about any of it for yourself-or doing any actual research for yourself- when you get all of your information from sources that support your views-you quickly lose touch with reality-as you have done-the air,water,soil,our rivers, lakes and streams
are cleaner than they have been since before the industrial age began-everything is much,much cleaner than when the environmental movement began in the 70's-the enviro-nazis-who's views you clearly represent-are just left over hippies from the 60's who are looking for a cause to keep the movement going-
you can't save every rat,mouse,frog,toad,turtle,lizard,owl on the planet-species were going extinct long before humans showed up-get over it-the rate of extinctions is NOT increasing-there has to be a sensible
balance between the needs of the human population-and the existence of a lizard.
Regarding the photo....
Notice the wind farm in the background? Who wants clean renewable energy when you've got the dirtiest oil (actually it's tar-sand mined by front-end loader) on the planet. Certainly not the oil companies. Certainly not the government.
Just turn the damn wind towers off. Tear them down.
America = The Great Polluter. One more reason other countries hate us.
Things to ponder, John Boehner bought into the company that will build the XL pipeline. Since oil companies pay NO Federal income tax, we get nothing from it. No clean up company has figured out how to clean up Tar Sand spills. The maximum employment will be 3900 Temporary jobs. Not one drop of this Tar Sand Oil will be refined for fuel for the US. Canada won't let a pipeline be built East or West because of the hazard probability of this stuff. This stuff is so hazardous, if a terrorist blew up a section of the un-protected pipeline it would do more damage than a Dirty Bomb. So for a few people to profit while the rest of the country takes the risk is not right.
Roy Wilson:
Where did you get the idea the oil would be used by us? It's only being shipped over our land and out our ports. There is no benefit to us other than temp jobs.
Energy security for whom Boner? Certainly not us.
The bigger question should be how the government is being allowed to force landowners to give up their land for non public use to a foreign corporation.
This pipeline was decided a long time ago. Sooner or later, this will be a regret with deadly consequences for the people, the land, the animals that are in its path.
The people loose again.
@ Starvin Larry
I'm not a neo-@!$%#ing-enviro-nazi you @!$%#! I'm just an American citizen being butt @!$%#ed by the government and the ultra rich, right wing, me me me me @!$%#s like YOU!
If you truly believe that the environment is cleaner today than it was 50-60 years ago you are a troglodyte, SIR!
I live in Texas you Yankee jerk, you know, the place where your meat comes from. Just last month Cargill shuttered a slaughterhouse in Plainview, costing 2000 plus 3rd generation families their livelihood, that gave all of you Yankee pukes your New York strips due to the drought here. Now, you ask yourself, "why the @!$%# should I care about the drought in Texas?". Because the REAL MEN here give you Yankee @!$%#s the things you take for granted every day! @!$%#!!!!!....and at the current rate of crop/cattle failure here you may not EAT in a few years! You should do a little RESEARCH yourself, jerk, to find out about it!
This planet is rebelling against the crap we've been giving it since the industrial revolution and you and your fat friends need to WAKE THE @!$%# UP! We live on a planet with FINITE resources dumb ass, GET IT?
Starvin Larry
From the Huffington Post. I know you hate facts because they get in the way of your BS. You demand facts from everyone else, so how about you provide some facts to support your redorick.
Nice job Kevin, I never had many good things to say about Texas till know. My Dad worked in packing plants in the 30s. I know just what you mean.
The jobs analysis is flawed, but here is the fact. Canadian citizens DO NOT WANT THIS IN THEIR BACKYARD. They have already settled the political hoops within the country and have made the dumbas$ American s beleive that we will have all these jobs and it will make us money. This study is flawed and now our own agency admits this project is full of holes. I am not a tree hugger and would cut any tree down that our puke huggers adorn, however, what hits me in the gut is our puke neighbors to the north have just taken the burning rod and shoved it up the American taxpayers rear with this project. The reality is that they analysed the routes stated earlier, but met with incredible resistance within their own country because "THEY DON'T WANT IT IN THEIR BACKYARD". I SAY TELL CANADA TO SHOVE IT AND BUILD IT IN YOUR OWN BACKYARD!
If it's being mined in Canada, let them refine it. The only way this pipeline should be approved is with the condition that all oil derived and refined will be sold only to the U.S. and Canada. Otherwise it's just another case of Big Oil buying our politicians to do their bidding. If it won't benefit us substantially in the long term, then we shouldn't do it. This project will do nothing to fix our internal political and financial problems. And our leaders are fixing to spend money we don't have to help people who already hate us, and once they achieve their goals, will hate us even more. WTF???? Al-qaida, or however it's spelled (like I really give a rats a$$), and their affiliates have managed to infiltrate not only the military ranks of our supposed allies, but also every group of the so called freedom fighters and rebels in not only Syria but all countries in the Middle East. Nothing will change in the Middle East until the inhabitants of that cesspool want it to. No amount of money will change that. Sunnis and Shiites have hated and been killing each other since the prophet Mohamed died without hand picking a successor. There are some who would have you believe that that is the only reason the two factions are at each others throats. The truth is that even if he had picked a successor, they'd still be fighting each other. Islam is going through the same violent stage of its evolution that Christianity went through. It was time and human sensibility that helped Christianity work through this stage. Can Islam do the same without causing any more loss of life? I guess time will tell. BUT U.S. DOLLARS IN WHATEVER FORM WILL NOT MAKE IT HAPPEN !!!!!! AAAARRRGGGGHHHH !!!!!
Gcooper,
I agree with much of what you post but I want to understand how it is only 600 miles to get to the Pacific or 800 miles to get to the Atlantic coast? The distance across Canada from Pacific to Atlantic is at least 3,000 miles.
If Obama clears the way for this pipeline he will go down in history as the president who delivered the United States environment and natural resources into the hands of a foreign government for plunder and devastation, against the express wish of the majority of the people.
This is the most egregious betrayal of his stewardship; it cannot be reversed or rectified once this monstrosity has created a breach into an aquifer, or any other leak. Why do our elected representatives refuse to travel to Canada and view first hand the devastation done by the tar sands there?
This is worthy of armed resistance.
By the time we have those deep regrets and finger pointing at those that opposed the pipeline instead of the morons that supported it, when we learn what a STUPID idea this is, we will already be working on the next really stupid idea. WHY? Because collectively we are stupid.
What the hell is wrong with us? There is nothing good in this deal for the USA. Some short term jobs building it and a small number to maintain it, most likely Canadians. Oh, yeah, there may be some other temporary jobs cleaning up best we can the fowling that will occur.
How many know that even oil dug up here in the USA is not American oil. There is only World oil. The increase in supply from this will not have anything to do with our gas prices.
Don't we care we are AGAIN being made fools of?
Can't let that slide...Canada's healthcare system cost around 10-11% not 69%
Which is why the government should not be allowed to weaken, restrict or compromise our 2nd Amendment.
Let me know the time and the place, and I'll be there; lock, stock and double barreled.
@ gcooper8 post 1.6,
The reason they need a southern route is because the oil needs to be heated to keep it flowing, or so I've heard.
This is insane. US oil use is way down, there have been massive new finds in California - possibly hundreds of billions on barrels, and LNG production nationwide has never been better.. so, what, we build a silly pipeline to buy sub-standard hydrocarbons from Canadian mud. Who bribed whom?
The Cons have the government there, and this is the same as the Cons here. Unfortunately, BOTH Parties are the Cons.
And We The People are the Conned.
Follow the Mother @!$%#ing Money. And Wake The @!$%# Up.
We The People will not be heard until We AS a People United (NOT Citizens United) stop these Criminals ruining OUR Country with such examples as this.
Bushbama.
Nothing has changed. Nor shall it, apparently. We are just counting down the days, folks.
Who needs drilling when the the rot in government goes all the way to the core...
Most people are not familiar with this project that Canada has been awarded. Canada is taking as much environmental risk to their soil as we are in one form or another. What I am really concerned about is the ground water contamination that could result from this. Fresh water is not exactly an abundant source in the world. The day may very well come where we will have to go to war over water and not oil. I hope that does not happen in my lifetime but it could!
Ryan Dunn...
Did you also notice all the beautiful wind mills? That is what we need more of. And before you cons- ervatives say anything about the rich lefties not wanting them in their backyards, F them! I don't want this filthy pipeline going from Canada to China via the US. The question should be is will the Canadians put up $100 billion in escrow to pay for any and all clean-ups caused by any spills and replace or restore all water and lands devastated by spills?
A far better project would be to build a refinery in North Dakota or Montana and use it all for the US market. This pipeline will cost $5.3 billion. BP in Indiana is just about to bring up their new plant built specifically to refine, wait for it....oil sands. Cost to build, between $5 to $6 billion. The oil sand is coming by pipeline, but not from this oil field in the Keystone project.
Nobody wants new refineries built in their backyards, but if you where going to find a reasonably safe place outside of high populated areas, it is right there just across the border from the bulk of the field. The new BP plant in Indiana is at an existing refinery that has been at that location for something like 100 years. There is a slight economy of scale at the existing plant, however the equipment needed to refine the oil sands is all new and mostly special. The existing plant is already running at capacity so the oil sands plant could be built stand alone with nothing really lost. The only real advantage might be the existing distribution system infrastructure. But even that is questionable.
A new refinery in North Dakota or Montana would create both construction jobs and somewhere around 2,000 or more permanent US jobs at the refinery alone. Maybe more in distribution. The added refined products would actually help US prices because it would give us some slight excess refining capacity. No more price spikes because a refinery is down for repair and maintenance like we see at least a couple times every year. Excess capacity of refined prices will lower pump prices. Not a huge amount, but a little. Oil prices are world market prices so even when we can pump US crude from US wells at a cost of $20-$30/bbl, it still gets "sold to refineries" at world market prices. (That is the myth of "cheap domestic oil". Just a much better profit margin using domestic crude)
Also, the oil sands crude would mean less crude we need to import from the Middle East. Besides not giving them our money, it could have a small effect on world prices. Probably not enough to notice at the pump, but as that frees up that crude for other markets, it does have a small effect.
Oil sands crude is not very cheap. Costs a lot to dig out and more complex to refine. It isn't so easy to pump long distances either and it is brutal on the pipelines. It isn't very high quality crude either. However, saving the cost of the pipeline across the country and selling refined product vs. crude would potentially have a better overall profit margin, although also potentially a bit more susceptible to fluctuation.
Keystone is looking to make a quick buck for its investors, but if we are going to tap into these oil sands, what I am proposing makes a lot more sense in the big picture.
Personally, from the big picture environmental view, we ought not be mining these oil sands at all. But if it is going to happen anyway, than we ought to do it in a way that is most energy efficient. No need for a massive ridiculously long and dangerous pipeline only to put it on oil tankers and ship it across the world. We waste a lot of energy transporting oil all over the world. If the US is going to be involved in this, we should also benefit from it more than a small number of construction jobs to build this "sewer line" across the country so we can have more oil tankers playing bumper tag in the Gulf Of Mexico. But I suppose it could be a benefit to some of our environmental clean up companies when the pipeline fails or we have a spill in the gulf.
Why do you suppose Haliburton purchased the largest clean up company in the world two month before the disastrous gulf oil spill? Not only did they profit on the construction of the wells, but by sheer coincidence, really "cleaned up" on the "unexpected" spill.
Culhealth.....Canada's health care surpassed $200B in 2011, so unless their budget is $2T, you might want to rethink your 10% figure.
So are you going to blame Bush next Debi?
According to the Cornell University study,
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/on-energy/2011/12/16/the-benefits-and-drawbacks-of-the-keystone-xl-pipeline
From the same US News article:
It seems to me that the public deserves to know just which American politicians have vested interests, ie, stock investments in TransCanada or this pipeline which makes their support a matter of possible conflict of interest.
The drilling is going to occur whether or not the US approves the Keystone XL pipeline. The Canadians have already said if Keystone doesn't go through they will just build the pipeline to Vancouver - West Coast. So the environmentalists aren't accomplishing anything with the delays. The US won't get even the temporary jobs.
The portion of the pipeline that opened the chock point in Oklahoma is already being built. So the impact to Midwest gas prices is going to occur anyway.
Farming cattle and other animals produces 3x more greenhouse gases than all of the transportation vehicles combined.....
perhaps we should investigation exactly what we are eating....and become less dependent on foreign nations for our needs
http://science.howstuffworks.com/zoology/mammals/methane-cow.htm
Regarding the wind farm... isn't there a community on the east coast being shut down because of the noise that is affecting the nearby reasident's health?
There is ALWAYS a tradeoff.... and if it was so great in the first place... wouldn't T. Boone still be doing it? Instead he, like Solyndra, took the money and ran.
I am really all for alternatives... traded in my SUV for a Diesel VW.... so I agree we need change... but you can't switch overnite... and the current alternatives really aren't viable without gov't subsidies.... like the Volt, Solar Power for homes, wind farms, ethenol.......
Being a conspiracy theorist, I believe this is another reason why the government is trying to limit our access to firearms. We can't fight for survival if we don't have the weapons to do so; we will have to depend on the government/corporations to ration everything we need out to us.
Already in the states where farms need water for crops and oil companies need water for fracking, they are fighting for control of it.
In the states where rural communities thought they had ample electricity to sell to companies to build gigantic data centers in the middle of fields to support the ever growing Internet access, they are fighting for access to electricity and energy.
The heads of corporations, and the politicians who protect them, no longer fear the constituents who elect them. They no longer have to pretend to believe in an afterlife because their constituents have told them to separate church and state and they don't have to pretend to care what happens when they die.
They don't give a damn what happens to the environment as long as it holds out while they are drawing breath and when they are rotting corpses in the ground, everyone can just deal.
jpeg:
You would only ask that question if you yourself have not come to the realization that greed and corruption are not limited to just one party and has no political boundaries, which can be very narrow minded and short sighted.
Debi-1314897 "Roy Wilson: Where did you get the idea the oil would be used by us?"
And where did you get the idea that it would NOT be used by us?
Oil is a fungible commodity, and it will be processed and sold to the highest bidder. If it's processed by refineries in the United States, it will be mixed with products from other oil sources to those refineries, and sold to users everywhere.
If we get the oil from a friendly Canada instead of a potentially volatile supplier like Saudi Arabia or Venezuela, we will have a much more reliable source in an emergency - Ie: ENERGY SECURITY.
And for the 'low information' consumer that thought that the war in Iraq was 'All about the oil', you might consider that we get virtually NONE of our oil from Iraq, and their oil is sold to the high bidder AT FULL MARKET PRICE.
Don in MO "The drilling is going to occur whether or not the US approves the Keystone XL pipeline. The Canadians have already said if Keystone doesn't go through they will just build the pipeline to Vancouver - West Coast. So the environmentalists aren't accomplishing anything with the delays. The US won't get even the temporary jobs."
Correct.
If we force Canada to build the pipeline to the West Coast, they will ship it to China, and we will lose the ability to have access to the oil in an emergency, meaning we would have less 'energy security', not to mention the lost jobs.
culheath "In 2006, per-capita spending for health care in Canada was US$3,678; in the U.S., US$6,714. The U.S. spent 15.3% of GDP on health care in that year; Canada spent 10.0%."
Let's see now;
We have 315 million people in the United States, so if we could save $3,000 per person by adopting the Canadian health care system, we could save $945 Billion PER YEAR and EVERYBODY would be covered.
I say "Let's do it".
Pay for it with a combination of payroll and sales taxes - it would make our businesses more competitive with foreign companies too since American companies spend more than that each year to cover just a fraction of the people.
You guys have no idea what you are talking about...you really need to do some research. First of all there is no way that the pipeline will be allowed to be constructed using a route to Vancouver on the west coast of Canada. Canadians, being environmentall6y aware, are adamantly opposed to any such thing.
From an article by Chris Hedges:
http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/12112-join-the-blockade-of-the-keystone-pipeline
So..... an increase in current greenhouse gas emissions by 17% per standards among already existing methods in the same production field, equivelant to some odd 600,000 current transportation vehicles for us commuters (note..... this does NOT include truck transport.... note that).
For most, cars 5 yrs. old or newer have cut emissions by more than that, so in essence, barring the eruption of a semi major volcano.... well, wait, let me take that one back, too, .... this is almost still better than ten years ago, equal at worst case scenario. Moot point there.
Our jobs and economy have been sold overseas; let's look at China, India; an increase in 17% for this pipeline..... any want to take some guesses on emission increases of this vs. what China and India have done via our Donkephants beholdence to Corporo-Interests (in the name of America going green to 3rd world wages, of course) ? 'Setting an example' while our sold out economy languishes and the bloated on the Hill and Their invested interests getting more and more bloated? The impact on environment vs. what we could have done utilizing what we have while working on better technologies.... WITH the money to do so?
Don't get side tracked on this, folks; this isn't a new hippie movement, it isn't about environment; if it were, China and India certainly wouldn't have our jobs, Mexico and others.
I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions, but please.... just be open minded. And, come up with more clever cliches if you wish to beat a horse into glue. 'Drill, baby drill' is getting ancient enough to have been coined when pamphlets were passed out at the crucifixion.
People cite wars and money problems being at least in part about oil, yet don't want to work with a friendly neighbor instead to get it. People want 'cleaner' technologies now, but none in Clowngress have done anything to help make it viable or worked upon while using what we have in the meanst... now, a 'panic'. We've allowed Clowngresses time and time again to sell out America, but somehow want jobs and all the above NOW..... completely green and clean.
I don't mind some green myself, but come on; put down the pipe once in awhile. How are some to acheive what they claim to want as all currently stands? I do believe in the magic of love, the dream of personal happiness but not in the magical dream of economy somehow being fine when everything under the sun is being done to it's American detrement. By it's 'representatives' from both sides.
Ryan--re: date on photo (incidentally it says NORTH Dakota, not South Dakota) Last winter was extraordinarily warm--basically there was no winter to speak of (back to normal this year)-- and extraordinarily dry. I don't recall leaves remaining on trees anywhere, but I suppose there is some possibility in a sheltered area.
It was hard last winter not to think GW had nothing to do with it. Or the sweltering dry (drought, but we had good subsoil moisture going in so agriculture did quite well) summer that followed.
Why does the picture caption say it is all ready under construction when there is still debate going on. And the headline reads " no other option", of course there is, how about we not build it.
"
bubba-1946427
You really think I support this???? I just wounder how much of an illegal kick back President Obama got for this."
Right and you don't wonder how much the Republican house leaders that have been pushing this for years are getting? Obama already stopped it once yet you think its all him pushing for this pipe line and nothing to do with your beloved repubs?
Me just thinks your a Obama hater and not someone that is truly using your little brain.
This pipe line does nothing good for us and is only something BIG OIL wants and you can bet BIG OIL are spending just has much if not more bribing Republicans.
"screminmimiIf Obama clears the way for this pipeline he will go down in history as the president who delivered the United States environment and natural resources into the hands of a foreign government for plunder and devastation, against the express wish of the majority of the people"
How odd that you totally miss the fact the the Republican house leadership is pushing hard for this pipeline.
Why is that they push for it but you lay all the blame on Obama?
Build it, yesterday already. Regardless of where the oil is ultimately used, it benefits us by increasing total supply. While the primary market may or may not be the Chinese today, that doesn't mean it can't/won't be the US in the future.
With regard to wind energy, you can shove that right up the environmentalists a$$es. Costly, unsightly, noisy, and inefficient. Other than that it's the greatest. As I drove across western Oklahoma, 100+ degrees F, of the hundreds of wind generators, nary a blade was moving. NO wind. But when is energy demand the highest, when its hot out, and when its hot, most often its calm.
Just to placate the dear little rich Oil companies and republicons. Build the oil line to feed the oil overseas at higher profits at the exspense of the taxpayers. Then less oil in the U.S. causing prices to go higher in the U.S. Republicons block bill to remover subsidies for the big oil companies who testified they did not need the subsidies......
Thanks republicons...the party of the rich 1%.
hard, if the primary market for Keystone was Chinese, the Canadians would use their own pipeline to bring the stuff to Vancouver and ship it to them that way. No, this stuff is intended for our markets, and that much doesn't make sense for us (although it sure does for the Canadians). This project is a dud, and if it happens, it'll all be on this administration (and I'm a Dem too).
I'm stunned this article failed to mention, the construction of this pipeline will skin multi-thousands of acres of boreal, wetland, riverine and grassland ecosystems. Ecosystems generate every reason Earth creates and supports all life, all of mankind's lifelines to existence. The wildlife mentioned in said article are biodiversity, the literal strands in the web of all life, the creators and saviors of ecosystems.
Science compares the extinctions of biodiversity as a threat to human existence, up there with "thermonuclear war". And, when they chop away trees and plants in ecosystems, they will release the sequestered ghg's back into the atmosphere. Deforestation heats up and dries out the climate as trees and plants transpire the climate cooling water cycle.
This long planet-killinig pipeline must be stopped!!
CalifirorniaFirst, if you are right, I like it all the more. However your reasoning is flawed with regard to building a pipeline to Vancouver, BC. The cost of building the line would be exponentially greater if the route went through the Canadian Rockies, more prone to failure of the pipeline I might add, from geologic forces, avalanches, etc., plus the impact of a major spill would be significantly greater. By comparison, the route through the western Dakotas to Oklahoma is geologically stable, easily assessable, and a spill (in the rare case it happened) would be relatively easy to clean-up. I know the region well as I lived there 30+ years.
skor154, get a grip man/woman. Somehow this project will bring about the calamity you envision? There are hundreds if not thousands of pipelines, traveling hundreds of thousands of miles, criss-crossing the country everywhere. 99% of the time you have no idea they are even there. There is literally no impact from these pipelines other than the positive impact they have on delivery cost and safety.
The line is going to a port.....DUHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!! Goodbye oil!
hard, that pipeline already exists, as I understand it. They don't have to build it. Plus it isn't our problem.. it's a Canadian one. Our government shouldn't be expending effort to help Canadians build a pipeline to help them get to their own refinery at Burrard Inlet or wherever, just so they can sell the stuff to SINOPEC so that they can use it to fuel the Chinese industrial machine. It makes no sense.
To all you so called environmentalists out there. You make me laugh! Let me ask you this.....do you drive a car, travel by air, heat your homes with gas or oil??? You love the convenience and comfort your car, airplane and heated home provides you don't you????? What would your life be like without gas and oil? I would bet my life, you would change your tune in a heartbeat!!! You are nothing but a bunch of blow hard hypocits...all of you!!!!!!
wingnut57....
I have never been to bejing, but somehow based on recent photos and news reports from there, they have a pollution problem far, far worse than ours.
How about the Canadians build it on their own land, take their own environmental risks and not force citizens of the United States of America to give up their land. It may cost a little more for the Canadians, but the higher cost will be divided amongst the world end users and it'll still get into the world's supply.
BP-2252891
Because he can veto it. Because he tabeled it prior to the election when he could have ended it then, and said it needed "further evaluation." And did so because he was too chicken to make a definite ruling on it, stradling the line until after the election when he would have nothing to lose regardles of which way he went.
He is the president of this country. It is under his stewardship. While Republicans pimp for their party and Democrats pimp for theirs, if he has any honor whatsoever, he is there for all of us AND for the ground upon which we stand, which needs to be nurtured for the future.
One of the good things about being a lame duck president is that he can do the right thing without worrying about the next presidential election. Yes, there will be elections outside the presidential arena. But he has a following that will just about guarantee him whatever he wants in local politics.
He needs to do what is right for America.
Bunkie11
I am training my horse to be ridden to town for my shopping, and I carpool with a neighbor when I need to use a vehicle. Many people are finding ways to conserve... except you.
That trite comment of yours is no excuse for stripping and polluting every resource on the continent. We have to stop somewhere. We have to have some restraint. And this freaking pipeline is not benefiting us. The danger outweighs the benefit to America.
You are one of the fools who doesn't give a damn what is left when you die, as long as there is enough to gobble while you live.
sighber @ 1.31
The distances I cited were from the northern terminus of the proposed
boondoggle-- I mean, "pipeline," in Hardisty, Alberta, then traveling west to the coast at British Columbia. The eastern route, as I said, would take them to Hudson Bay, from whence they would steam eastward through the Hudson Strait and into the Atlantic. Check out maps on bing or google, and you can see it more clearly.Confussed-1578043 @ 1.37
No matter which route chosen through Canada, the ambient temperatures for the distances traveled, when compared to a route through the U.S., would require heating roughly the same amount of pipeline (assuming such heating is required for the "tar sands" heavy sour crude, which I don't dispute your point but am uncertain of). Whether it's winter in the U.S. plains or winter in Canada, it's gonna get cold.
I hope that clarifies things. I appreciate your questions. Thank you.
They don't drill for this oil, they strip mine it. The material is more like tar than oil. It is close to the surface. There are a few different processes, but that standard method involves using enoromus amounts of steam and usually sodium hydroxide, (industial soap essentailly), to separate the oil from the sand.
They strip off and either waste or reserve the overburden, then shovel out the sludge for processing. The contaminated sand remaining is waste.
These fields are basically large limestone bowls filled with sand and the very nasty, oil/tar material mixed in. When they are done, you're left with useless contaminated land. It is a horrible, destructive, messy process. Sometimes they need to use solvents, (very light, nasty petrolium products) to cut the stuff so it tries to flow.
It is very expensive to extract this stuff. It's about spending $9 to get $10 back. The best way this is profitable is when world market prices are high. They do gain some economy of scale and obviously, the more they push through the pipeline, the more oil that pipeline cost gets distributed across. Still it is about spending so much to get so little. It isn't good for the US and it isn't very good for the environment either.
Here's what really trips my trigger about the Keystone XL Pipeline Boondoggle:
The proposed route crosses a vast expanse of the Ogallala Aquifer, which holds enough water to cover the country’s 48 contiguous states two feet deep.
And the possible consequences for a spill of this noxious product on American soil are too great to risk, to wit:
James Goecke, hydrogeologist and professor emeritus at the University of Nebraska in Lincoln: "It’s not like dropping oil into a lake, he says; remember, the aquifer is more like a sponge."
So I reiterate: Let the Canadians accept the risk along with the profits their transport and sale of their heavy sour "tar sands" crude product will yield. They'll realize by far the vast majority of the profit, while they accept none of the risk. That is what's commonly known as a "sucker's bet," and there's no reason on God's green earth that we should take that bet.
And have a look at this map:
http://insideclimatenews.org/sites/defaul/file/tarsandspipelineboomapril2012InsideClimateNews_0.jpg
It shows not only the potential damage that their current XL project can inflict, but they're planning even more pipeline routes through OUR country.
And the most telling part of the map shows their two planned pipeline routes, from Edmonton, Alberta, to Burnaby BC, and from Bruderheim, Alberta, to Kitmat, BC.!!!
This is the very thing I kvetched about in my post 1.6!!!
So I say again: Let the Canadians keep their damned inferior product and the inherent risks of its transport IN THEIR OWN COUNTRY!
Dig the sucker and get rid of Venezuelan crude
This oil isn't for US consumption, it is sent to the ports in Texas to be processed and shipped to other countries.
IAMMYOWNWOMAN is correct, it is not for U.S. consumption. We would be gaining jobs(temporarily) which is a pro, but we would be suffering several long term environmental issues while only oil companies benefit from the pipeline and not the American people. Another issue that should be at least considered is how often pipelines are targetted by terrorists in the middle-east, and how are we going to protect this one going all the way down the United States? A very simple act of vandalism could cause millions in damage.
riverboy,
The environmental impact of the Alaska pipeline has been insignificant, and the Alaskans who gets their PFD check every year would dispute your claim that a pipeline can't benefit the people.
What a joke, all those Alaskan GOP survivalists getting their gov't check in the mail. The ones that are against gov't telling them how to live, what a bunch of hypocrites.
denver bill-the checks have been shrinking over the years, and believe it or not, there are Alaskans that wish the pipeline had never been built. During the construction, prostitution and drug sales were everywhere.
Also, the pipelines are being built by two different companies. BP has had spills in Alaska, and paid fines. The company building Keystone is known in Canada for poor construction and numerous spills. Why do you think the Canadians want it to go through our country and not theirs? Don't you think they'd be screaming over lost jobs? Think about it.
Okay percentage of Americans who have applied for the PFD checks is .12%. There isn't information about how many Alaskans receive checks, but 405,491 is how many applications there have been and no information on how many have been approved. If that percentage goes above 1% after the Keystone pipeline I will eat my own head. The PFD argument is not a realistic one to show benefits of Americans.
Your comment is like me saying California benefited because I got paid today and I live in California. If you are curious on some of the environmental damage from the Alaska pipeline just google it, I'll give you some hints:
Caribou Migration
Moose Migration
Musk Oxen Migration
Wolf Diet dependent on those migrations
Bear Diet dependent on those migrations
Native American diet & way of life dependent on those migrations
Most of those would not be issues for large parts of the Keystone Pipeline but you were talking about the Alaskan one. If we want to get fancy look at charts of greenhouse gases, or the multiple spills that have occured and been hard to track down and repair.
Riverboy is exactly right. These jobs are temporary. If the pipeline resulted in 42,000 permanent jobs, that might be a different matter. But, we're talking about jobs lasting, in any particular locale, just a few months. But, the damage will persist for years.
And you don't "dig" a pipeline.
Global corporations don't care about international borders, and this is one example. This is a flagrant disrespect of U.S. sovereignty.
denver bill 2
The environmental impact of the Alaska pipeline has been insignificant.
@denver bill,
If you believe that I have some ocean from property in North Dakota for you. There have been significant environmental damages, can you say the Exxon Valdez, done because of the pipeline, least of which, are the numerous times drunk hillbillies shot it.
I guess we are exporting raw materials because that is all the world is interested in to buy from us. It will be good for the balance of trade situation. It is a tad sad that we are like a third world nation selling raw materials, further compounded by the fact that is is not even our oil but Canadian oil. We are a middle man for transportation purpose. I feel a little used. Don't you? Whaow.....
It's all a shell game for the rich to get richer. We export our oil, then import oil to use. WTF?
Riverboy-
You are full of sh*t with you claims that the Alaske pipeline affected migrations of any big game animals-where there were migration routes-the pipeline was elevated well above the height of the animals that crossed there-since you claim to have done research-what about the animals hanging out right next to the pipeline because the oil is warm and gives them a break from the brutal cold?
You would also have found that there was no disruption in the native Americans way of life-the same migrations still use the same routes-plus many animals tend to stay next to the pipeline in really cold weather-making an easy hunt.
You are just spreading misinformation-like those who represent all enviro groups do.
All of you screaming there will be no crops, no clean air, etc., well you are nuts. 13,000 farms have been shut down in 2012 and tons more prior to that date...Gas, what gas, you will be walking if obama has his way. You green freaks need to start using your heads...Better watch out, the sky is falling tonight..
SEQUESTRATION has been signed, about an hour ago, by obama. This was his idea all along, and he built it.
Those in favor, say Aye.
...
Yeah, that's what I thought. Ignorant shills, Big Energy, and the Puppets in DC only. Go @!$%# yourselves, not We The People. Or face the consequences of Hell on Earth. It is getting closer daily.
Bushbama is proving to be a Fraud, and we that voted for his 'Lessor Of Two Evils' ass as fools.
I' m not going to getinot the temporary jobs issues - unless you need one or the environmental issues - as there are a lot to overcome but there is one thing a lot of you are missing - Transport Fees. Each gallon of crude llike anything else - water, natural gas, etc - will have a "transport fee" as it passes thru the pipeline and when it is pumped out to the tankers. There are all kinds of fees and they will generate millions if not billions of dollars. The same thing will happen when it's time to move the natural gas being found in ND. I am not advocating for or against the pipeline, just pointing something out.
Can't do that...Obama and his buddy George Soros are heavily invested in South American oil.
It'll supply jobs, alright. All those new hospitals have to be built and staffed. Somebody is going to have treat the influx of cancer patients and deformed newborns. We would get more school built, for children that will have developmental delays, physical deformities, and such, but that will take up tax money, and it's not going to be there, because the guys that are going to profit off of this pipeline, are going to get away with paying nothing, because their yacht and dressage horses are tax write offs. Who needs schools, anyway? Slave labor don't need no edamacation!
It won't even lower energy prices in the US. It would probably cause them to rise. Some of this low quality tar sands oil is presently used in the US, and since the supply far exceeds the demand the price is somewhat discounted form what it would cost on the world market. Once Canada has access to the world market through US ports, they no longer will need to sell some of it at a discount here in the US.
Look at the locations that it runs through: The Great Plains, our breadbasket. Water flows for miles underground throughout the region. If a terrorist blows up a section of the pipeline, water all around the area for hundreds of square miles will be poisoned, and the food grown on that land will be poisoned also. Then, food prices will skyrocket, and our economy will collapse, ending in food riots, then civil war or revolution. Is it really necessary to destroy our country for a stupid pipeline that could be run elsewhere (like a storage station at the border, that's far away from food-growing land and residential areas)? Come on, people, use your heads. Why give terrorists a target where they can do catastrophic damage or destroy our government? Monumentally, Darwinianly stupid.
I think the goal of the pipeline is to get the oil from Canada down to the oil refineries in Texas. How is having the pipeline run to a storage station on the border going to solve that goal? Truck it down from there?
Despite what environmentalists and naysayers would have you believe, I suspect that a crude oil pipeline running across the prairie isn't even on the first ten pages of terrorists' targets in the U.S. And there is not a case on record that I am aware of of a pipeline spill destroying crops for ten square miles, much less hundreds.
Go to Nigeria. There are billions of dollars of damage caused by the oil companies Shell and Exxon. It'll take 30 years or more to clean up the ecological damage. There is already proof of welding holes in the Keystone pipes, and get this-they have their own inspectors doing the inspecting. Such a special deal they got!
Who will you blame when the crap hits the fan?
The pipeline will leak oil into the Mississippi River Watershed regardless of any terrorist attack. There are numerous reports of pipeline "malfunctions" every year which spill oil into groundwater; however, these pipelines are usually located in areas where smaller populations rely on said groundwater, and in areas that are environmentally significant, but not as significant in regards to human environmental health concerns. Not to mention this pipeline is enormous. You think TransCanada is going to be able to maintain the pipeline efficiently? These companies can't even efficiently conduct scheduled maintenance on a single drilling rig, let alone a pipeline stretching 2,000 miles.
Alex -
Why don't you list some of those reports? Then compare those effects with the environmental impact of using rail and trucks to transport it.
Surely you have the date at your fingertips, don't you? No? Why not? Could it possible be that it is environmental propaganda put out by the likes of the Sierra Club? The same group that in many eyes is considered an environmental terrorist group because of their methods, claiming that the end justifies the means?
Scubasteve, I suspect it won't be refined here but transported crude abroad, maybe Brazil or whatnot. We don't know and they don't advertise it either. To the highest buyer as in any market and wherever? For cost purpose it would make sense that it would stay on the North and South American continents but going through the Panama Canal it could go anywhere they need it. The hard part is loading the ship but once loaded it can cruise anywhere, a la Carnival, without passengers.
They could refine in Texas and ship but that is dangerous transportation and there is more to crude than gasoline. Tar for roads, jet fuel, diesel, synthetic fibers, plastics, fertilizers, pharmaceuticals etc. Petro-chemistry is a huge field. I personally value and respect it as the second industrial revolution base for humanity, coal being the first one and computers being the third. And that is why we ought to figure out how to do without it eventually as it will run out. We need an environmental revolution of sort, where we learn to live sustainably. If we don't plan for it, we'll be ill prepared and world populations will crash. Imagine 5 out of 6 people dying from lack of food, conflicts, pollution, water rising, diseases etc... the ant farm collapsing... What are capitalists going to capitalize on then?
Well, maybe they don't care about people that much...
Several of the plans have the pipeline running along the same N/S corridors that gas and oil pipelines are buried now and have been for many years. The pipeline, as I understand it, will only require a few yard wide strip not hundreds of acres as most have been led to believe. The risk of polluting the Ogallala Aquifer (massive under ground water source) from the pipeline is minimal compared to the existing thousands of center pivot irrigation units leaching nitrogen through the soil.
blackshirts: Good attempt at deflection. But, there has never been a pipeline developed that hasn't leaked and since this is the nastiest substance possible that we could use for fuel, damage the aquifer it will.
@ Denver Bill 2: We had a spill here in MT. a couple of yrs. ago. I grant you, it did not contaminate much land. Went right into the Yellowstone river - a tributary of the Missouri river - a tributary of the chemical flow we used to call the Mississippi. All downstream, freshwater fish are as tainted & toxic as Fukishima sushi and a lot of flatlanders are wondering why cancer rates, medical costs and insurance premiums are increasing. Pick your poison.
The Answer Is simple,What terrorists?Janet Napolitano will not allow terrorists in the U.S.I am being sarcastic of course.Terrorists are more interested in taking out telecommunications and nuclear power plants than a Canadian pipeline.We are allowing this pipeline to be built in the U.s. because there is something that we want from Canada.
It was a year and a half ago. 50 miles of river coast was labeled tainted. They found no significant signs of oiled birds, fish or amphibians. 1.6 million dollar settlement. Flooding the likely cause, and worsening of the spill. Nothing of the likes you claim.
Time for these unimaginative and backward thinking dinosaurs to step OFF! We need to get off the oil tit and these Oil Robber Baron puppets don't give one damn about subsequent generations. We already have the technology and means to replace fossil fuels. "No better way" I call foul, that statement should be "No better way in order to continue to allow the Oil Robber Barons to manipulate the Global economy, control inflation by raising gas EIGHTY CENTS IN ONE MONTH and causing hardship and inflation for everyone but themselves. Enough is enough.
Take your meds.
luke-2418393: Take your own meds. We pump $17 billion a year in oil subsidies to an industry that makes billions in profit and pays no taxes. We now undertake a massive pipeline which will have no affect on our economy or jobless rates, all so Canadian oil manufacturers can pump even more dirty oil and damage their environment and ours.
I could go on about these corporate folks, but people like you are the real problem. As AA said, "enough is enough".
At least this was given the necessary vetting before being shoved through by the lobbyists and being stopped by the environmentalists. If I recall, it was the Republican Governor of Nebraska who wanted the study, Obama complied to hos request, and it was studied.
If you were thinking that this was going to lower gas prices, you don't have a grasp on corporate politics. Did you think the oil companies were going to sell it for less than the current market rate. Why would they when they can gain more profit (and get biggerer and biggerer!).
Yup, the oil is going to go to the highest bidder.
Because if gas prices get crazy that pipeline might get a few angry bullets flying thru. Oops! my bad.
Most of the tar sands oil will go to China for domestic consumption.
Can't wait for that tasty oil saturated water when this leaks into the aquifer.
Mmmmmmmmmm~
You do realize the entire country is criss-crossed with gas and oil pipeline already right?
You do realize there's this new scientific invention called humor, right?
Now that the campaign is over, the President can live with cost of upsetting his environmental supporters. Don't need their votes anymore. Like he told the Russians, "after the election, I will have more flexibility".
jimbob, the flip side is that not building the pipeline isn't going to lower prices either, and will guarantee that prices will rise.
rob
You don't think using more of our limited refineries to produce more oil products for shipment overseas. Will not impact our own gas supply?
Maybe the point is that those in power could care less about their own people. The two party system is a joke.
The Canadians are going to produce the oil and sell it to the Chinese if we block it from the US.
The question is, should it be us doing business with our neighbor or someone else?
It is getting shipped out, why possibly damage our land for something that gives us no value or benefit? And funny how the original estimate of jobs was 500, now it is 42,000. If Congress had passed the Infrastructure bill people would already be working.
The Canadians have already blocked it being build across the Canuk Rockies because of environmental reasons so naturally stupid Americans who think that this oil will be sold in the oil clamored for the pipeline to be build across the American prairie. The pipe itself was fabricated in China and the few jobs that it will create are temporary.
This pipeline will cause the price of oil to rise in the US because the glut of oil that has kept the price low in the upper-Midwest will now flow in this pipeline to the gulf coast and be shipped overseas.
Where are the Fox News TEABaggers who supported this pipeline a year ago and why aren't they defending Obama?
The Keystone pipeline supporters claimed that we needed the pipeline capacity in the US but we have excess capacity in the US. This oil was never meant for American consumption, but they wouldn't believe us because Fox News was telling them different.
The Canadians are going to produce the oil and sell it to the Chinese anyway, regardless.
Question is, should it be us paying the environmental price, or those who want it so badly they don't care about the environmental consequences? Let them put it in their own back yard if it's such a great idea.
Sure there is a better way. Say no, and let Canada deal with it.
Indeed, the greatest flaw of the analysis is its assumption that there must be a "way" in the first place, let alone a "better" one.
I guess there is a "better way" to polish a turd that I am not aware of, though.
Yea look how bad the Alaska Pipeline damaged the land up there !!!
In recent years, about 500 oil spills have occurred in the Prudhoe Bay oil fields and along the 800-mile pipeline each year, according to the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation.
This includes the largest leak in pipeline history, 267,000 gallons, at Prudhoe Bay. This doesn't include the Exxon Valdez that had just picked up oil from the pipeline before it crashed and lost it's oil. Severely damaging the fisheries up there.
A friend of mine's brother was a fisherman up there at the time of the Valdez spill. He has never received a dime for his losses. Everything was tied up in the Courts and the State took a huge amount of the money. So any spills in the Heartland and the farmers can kiss that land good-bye.
Exactly, Rich! There have been many leaks and spills of the Alaska pipeline, but thankfully in areas where we don't live and grow our food. It also blocks animal migrations. A spill (accidental or act of terrorism) in our breadbasket would be a huge catastrophe with potentially lethal costs. Additionally, it is not worth the additional greenhouse gases produced in extracting, transporting, and refining this dirty oil that will not even be available to our country. I hope the president stands strong on protecting our environment from this ill-advised proposal!
Niwrad,
You clearly do not understand Obama. He snookered the environmentalists once again as he never had any intention of holding off on opening up this pipeline. He just held off until he got your vote. LOL. This is similar to his Gitmo and immigration reform promises. To him it is like taking candy from a baby. His formula: Make a false promise. Get your vote. Break the promise. Take heat for a week or so. Repeat.
To sum up the calculus of this decision: The unions hold more power over him (i.e, give him more money) than the environmentalists.
Surely you cannot be surprised by this action. After all, we are all of a few months past the election. LOLOLOLOLOL. It boggles the mind how gullible some of the folks are. Wake up and smell the coffee!
I say NO! to Keystone. We have got to look after our sovereign land ahead of profit. The US will not gain that much from the royalties it will earn when that oil, (processed here and stinking up our air and dirtying our waters). That oil isn't going to stay here, or even offer us any kind of discount (thank OPEC).
We have a lot more to lose than gain by this deal. Certainly it won't really be the American populace that benefits from it so much as the corporate investors.
After reading many posts I believe this is the only post having experience or facts to it. We had a pipeline go thru our area (state and region) around 6 years ago. Our area and those in a wide area thru the state and country had huge gains in business and jobs. Yes there are some problems that come with this but they have been very few. A few minor leaks that were found and fixed because of monitoring equipment made to make sure there are almost no problems. Our area is pristine wilderness and the only thing the pipeline did was get some people jobs/careers and provide a drastic 1 year increase in commerce. If any of you knew the level of government supervision, rules and fines. There would be a very different opinion. Like almost in everything, so many are so vocal and proud of their ignorance.
Typing while looking into a mirror, you are luke. Dumbass.
luke-2418393: Yep. You're the expert. We got to listen to you and you only 'cause you have annecdotal evidence on a pipeline in your yard. Bla bla bla. Snark.
Absolutely stupid decision; all for oil that is being shipped over seas anyway. Let Canada build the pipeline across their land.
This won't lower the price of oil and gas in this country. It isn't being sold in the US, it is being shipped outside the US to China and Japan.
We have stockpiles of oil right now. Stockpiles. And by 2015 we should be self-sufficient.
iammy
We will never be self-sufficient. Because we are shipping overseas that stockpile of oil your are talking about. Of course after we refine it for them. It's a win win for the oil companies. They can make more money selling overseas then here. Plus, if they use our refineries here. They can keep our gas prices high too.
And cue the liberals standard, "the sky is falling" line. If anyone remembers, the DOE was created to eliminate our need for foreign oil. Specifically, from countries that seem to enjoy killing our citizens. And until one of you geniuses create a vehicle that runs on unicorn crap, just be content with the fact that we will be importing LESS crude oil from aforementioned countries. Have a great weekend my clueless liberal friends!
I know just the guy that can help.
His name's Kim. Lives in some strange, isolated place.
Electric vehicles + Nuclear/Solar.
It'll suck in the beginning but we'll be much better off in the long run.
Of course this is a waste of time as you can't think past Rush et al, but have to mention that Canadian tar sand oil is only going to be refined in the US and then sent to our other good friends, the Chinese. But that's OK, somehow you will continue to think that "our" wonderful neighborhood oil companies will lower fuel prices just for you. I suggest that you forget about unicorn crap and just focus on your fairy dust to get where you're going... I'm sure you'll have a fine weekend.
I thought Rush was a good movie.
What does that have to do with the subject?
Irony alert!
Maybe Nancy Pukelosi will teach us how she makes her broom fly!!!
This oil being sent to Asia is not a fact. This is a possible rumor being used to promote one sides cause. Would it not make more sense this oil would stay in America if needed? Would the price not be less to stay than ship half way across the world? Would not more oil on the market lower gas prices? On top of the 40000+ temporary jobs(very badly needed) how would there not be more long term jobs with the increase of refining and shipping?
luke, how can YOU say the oil isn't going to be shipped to Asia, when TransCannada said it THEMSELVES it was to be shipped there one way or another? Oil has been shipped OUT of the U.S. more in the last couple years than ever before because of one thing, a higher profit margin for the corporations, period. People complain about prices here, try Europe where it's hovering near $10 a gal. At one time GOP 'leaders' were saying that 100's of thousands of jobs were to be had building this pipeline, now it's in the 40,000 range? What is the next thing they'll say 20,000? 10,000? I'd say maybe a couple hundred part-timers to monitor the pipeline, and if/when a pipe bursts, I hope that State will be able to handle it without Fed money since it won't be a 'natural disaster.'
@"Oldgreywolf", LMFAO!!! Yep, I bet 'ole Kimmy is more than ready to help out now that Rodman is on his "team"! And @ "TPaine" and "Fantomdog", you're both confusing facts. The USA does not export crude oil. We export finished products that millions of people all of the globe use for their internal combustion engines. If either of you had a clue between you, you'd know this. Don't let ideologies and talking points drive your arguments. The simple fact is that we, as a part of a global economy, are firmly a petro-driven society, fact. Even if you drive a Prius, you still depend on petroleum products for almost every aspect of the ultimate "green" vehicle. The very computer you're using at this moment wouldn't be possible without petroleum. The very energy needed to run said computer is also derived from petroleum. And yes, it's nasty and dangereous to convert this organic slime into something usable, but without it, the Industrial Revolution would have stopped at windmill technology. And even if it adds only 10K jobs, it will make up for the union driven Hostess fiasco. And yes, in the near future, we will be "weaned" off of petroleum, but it won't happen in our lifetimes.
It's far worse than the thousands of miles of already existing pipelines that crisscross the US because ........ uhhhhh ........ hmmmmmmmmm ........ Next question please.
OK so why does Texas lead the US by a huge margin in wind power, but wind power in Massawhoquits is a health hazard and must be removed? Uhhh.... because progressives are more sensitive to electromagnetic emanations than regular people and need their tin foil hats to block out evil thought rays from conservative talk radio?
Where's the liberal environmentalist outrage that some State like Texas whips the tail off the blue, progressive states when it comes to renewable energy development and implementation? How could you allow a Republican Governor and legislature to get away with this travesty?
Because the local spills don't make it to the National News?
As a result of a broken pipeline owned by West Shore Pipe Line Co, there was an oil spill in Jackson, WI. Reports estimate about 55,000 gallons of oil leaked. Although the oil spill occurred two weeks ago, it has contaminated the soil in the area, and at least seven residential water wells. Washington County residents were not evacuated from their homes, but some chose to take precautions by voluntarily evacuating. Their well water is still contaminated.
The problem is, if national news covered it, people would say "whine, whine, whine". Until it happens in their backyard.
For the record Wisconsin, Illinois, and Minnesota have had wind farms for decades. Can't speak for MA.
And Texas has more wind farms, windmills, power generated than all of them combined and the highest percentage of wind generated power to total power consumption in the country.
And you seriously don't think spills make the national news? For some funny reason people in TX, OK, LA, etc where there has been production and plenty of pipelines for years seem to be less whiny?
Still don't get it, unless it's that hypocrisy thingee called NIMBY.
recovering democrat .. It is far worse than the pipe lines we presently have. This stuff is very corrosive and will cause more leaks and it pollutes the air much worse at the refineries. The air is polluted enough with our own oil, let Canada have the pollution in refining this stuff. We have discovered more oil in our own country that we would be better off refining and using here as well as shipping overseas.
Yes, there are huge wind farms in Texas because they are in the middle of nowhere in that vast no-man's windblown land known as the panhandle, so I wouldn't compare that with Massachusetts for beginners.
And please don't bring that crook, idiot Perry into this mix. Check his record. The minute Obama asked for greater wind and solar from energy companies, Perry doesn't want it anymore. The minute Obama allows this pipeline Perry will complain about federal eminent domain or Washington or Ottawa taking over Texas. This is the idiot who tried to ramrod the Trans Texas Corridor that was to be operated by a company from Spain, so you can factor out his nationalistic cum secessionist ruses. Follow the dollar signs and you will see where Perry really has his loyalty.
And yet Texas is at the top when it comes to "business friendly" atmospheres. We have a thriving economy statewide, and no state income tax. Amazingly, I live in the Panhandle, and there are a few windfarms dotting the countryside. If Texas is such a terrible place to live "Texas pam", there are several other states in the immediate vicinity...
Thank You, Texas Pam, for reminding us that not all Tezans are like NPCDan cut and runners. I always love that "if you don't like it, leave" crap. Like they cannot discern the Truth and Facts from general rhetoric of their own ilk. Like Perry's ability to recall three things...
Also, those surrounding states are not much of an alternative to offer.
Does anyone remember last year when Boehner was touting that this pipeline would create over 200,000 jobs? Now the number is 42,000 jobs. Either way, these are temporary jobs. On top of the lies by Boehner, the oil is not going to benefit the US, it is going to be sold on the world market.
Across the country and state by state, community by community the pipeline goes thru will ad jobs that are refused to be counted by the liberal opposition. The truth is that it will be more like 200000 than 40000 if actually counted correctly. We need jobs more than anything!!! The only thing I have heard other than rumor is that if we do not build this pipeline the oil will be sent to Asia. Not that it will be sent to Asia if we build it.
The study fails to adress that this pipeline isn't needed. If completed oil prices in the Mid West will go UP! Canadaz wants it because they will get more $$ for the oil they currently can't transport. Also, making oil from tar sands takes huge amounts of water that should be used for other purposes.
Since we are on the verge of being a net exporter anyway, why would we want to import more oil at the cost of damaging the environment
Travis, we imported about 40% of our oil last year....how in the heck does that put us on the verge of being a net exporter?
Good question "jpeg"! I bet you won't get a good answer though. This partnership is absolutely vital to our National Interests, but the liberal left refuses to see that. Even if it drops our need for M.E. oil by 10%, it's worth it. It seems to me that these liberals would much rather fund Saudi Wahhabism schools, rather than keep the money, and jobs here in North America. And yes, some of the construction aspects will be temporary, as they ALL are. You can't just keep on constructing once the job is finished, but there will be thousands employed maintaining this pipeline, inspecting this pipeline, and upgrading it once it's finished.
How about those that are Conservationist of No Party? You may have heard of them. Americans that can get their facts straight and not buy into the Shills propaganda.
I bet Obama passes it to turn of the Sequester, as well as accepting cuts to Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes. He will never win with the GNOP, even if he continues to appease them and do their bidding. Artic Oil Drilling? We are neck deep in Petroleun and Gas Production. at alny cost, already. There has been no move to Regulate the Fracking Industry, and most likely, this Pipeline, which is already being laid out, including inferior grade materials found to be full of holes, actual HOLES, which are not being inspected, just waiting for the word GO.
Keep tossing off with your categorization of People that are voting US Citizens. It is working out so well for this country. And Texas.
You are just making @!$%# up to be obstinent when you go to Middle Eastern Oil Imports to use as an excuse for passing Keystone XL.
In other words, the U.S. shale gas boom is one, though not only, major factor in reducing the country's use of oil and gradually weaning the country from relying on the Persian Gulf. Another chart from EIA corroborates the recent downward trend in U.S. oil imports, now primarily originating within the Americas, with Canada leading the way.
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/damien_ma/Ma%2520SOURCES%2520OF%2520US%2520NET%2520PETROLEUM.png&imgrefurl=http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/07/dependence-on-middle-eastern-oil-now-its-chinas-problem-too/259947/&h=655&w=600&sz=32&tbnid=jeEZxXFbtS1RUM:&tbnh=90&tbnw=82&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dus%2Boil%2Bimports%2Bby%2Bcountry%2B2012%26tbm%3Disch%26tbo%3Du&zoom=1&q=us+oil+imports+by+country+2012&usg=__kfmNFMPz3Gwcj4zxoqvG-HbuM7Y=&docid=dGBQvHExlp_CcM&sa=X&ei=Ofg0Uda-EobO9QSZ34CIBg&ved=0CE0Q9QEwBQ&dur=219
So Keep On Shilling!!! It will be my pleasure to correct your made up facts.
Death and destruction at all costs to protect BIG OIL profits.
Not a good answer.
Funny how when Obama capitulates he stay out of the limelight and the "State Department" thinks it's a good deal.
Feel free to move into a cave at your earliest convenience.
Yes, "political enabler 2012", please keep your words in mind the next time you: 1) drive to work, 2) enjoy a heated house, 3) use your computer, or any other appliance, 4) take a vacation, 5) turn on a light in your home, 6) are ready to eat crow. If petroleum production CEASED this day, the entire globe, with the exception of a few places in Africa, and S. America, would be in compete upheavel. You silly liberals absolutely refuse to see how intertwined our global economy is tied to petroleum. Stay clueless my silly liberal friends!
Keep Shilling my Right Wing Nutjob Shill Friend!!
NPCDan, hasn't it ever occurred to you that if the money grubbing bastards in big oil would decently grab less of the profits from our great American resource (oil) and pay more to their employees, more in taxes and more towards protecting the environment, that they could still be doing pretty damn good and we'd all be a lot better off?
Why people think that this helps with US consumption or gas prices just don't understand the free market. Canada (not Iraq, Saudi Arabia or anywhere else) is the largest exporter of oil to the US. But look at Canadian gas and oil prices. You would think with all that Canadian oil, they would have cheap gas and oil. But they don't, they ship it out where it goes on the open market where the prices are set. Unless people are espousing a government take over of US oil companies and setting prices and quotas to be sold strictly in the US (like Venezuela that so many people despise) then we are going to keep paying what the oil companies want us to pay. Canada gets a nice pipeline across someone else's back yard to refineries that will take it, refine it and ship it out to the rest of the world. Well done Canada. Maybe Canadians should be up in arms that their prices are so high while they export so much to the US. Perhaps not, might cause the US to think the Canadians have some WMD's hidden in their forests somewhere which requires some regime change.
Shogun
Actually the reason the Canadians pay so much for gas is because most of the price is taxes paid to the local Government. And the reason the Canadians want the pipeline is because Houston would be a tax free port for them. Otherwise they would have to build a line to Vancouver which would mean paying taxes. In most cases we will use the oil and ship our surplus oversea's. But the real benefit will be the natural gas coming from those well heads which will mean lower natural gas prices for us. So who would you rather buy oil from, our nice neighbor from the north or some @!$%# in Venezuela?
That @!$%# name in Venezuela is George Soros!
We can't be screwing obama's friends now.....
Don't forget the fact that Mr. Obama basically opened up the Brazilian coast for Mr. Soros to start exploration, while nearly ceasing our production in the Gulf. Nice try "Shogun", it sounds like someone doesn't understand "free market capitalism" either...
This pipeline will only provide TEMPORARY construction jobs. I understand the necessity for jobs in this country and realize how devastating unemployment levels are currently, but this is not a solution. Nearly all of the tar sands are meant to be shipped out of our country, so the pipeline will not lower our dependence on foreign oil or create any new permanent jobs. What the pipeline will do, on the other hand, is devastate the Mississippi River Watershed with soil erosion and petrochemical contamination as well as severely impact public lands used to protect keystone endangered species that are crucial to maintaining delicate ecosystems; think about the millions of people who reside within this watershed and rely on it for their well being, in regards to employment or simply drinking water use. Not to mention the most important fact...that the release of this level of carbon into our atmosphere basically spells "game over" for climate change. It amazes me that people are so misinformed about Keystone XL, especially the state department according to their statement. It's like building a nuclear power plant just outside of a major city, that we know will melt down in twenty years, because it'll potentially provide temporary jobs for the next two or three years. In fact, most of the independent assessments I've read on the pipleline state that TransCanada will be providing most of the construction labor to complete the pipeline through the US. The amount of temporary jobs stated to be created from Keystone XL has been vastly overestimated in order to gain public acceptance for the pipeline.
Please do some objective research on this subject before believing anything you hear and if you care about future generations, write to the White House and your Congressmen to oppose this catastrophe.
Biggest bunch of bovine scat I've read today...but it's early...
Alex,
Thank You for a wonderful synopsis of what is at stake and the misconceptions being spread by shills such as NPCDan, who has few facts he has not made up himself.
Scat Man Dan!!!
Natural gas is the future.
Probably the worst idea ever.... aside from the inevitable leaks and other environmental problems, this project will:
1. Further enrich oil companies and the Chinese, and do nothing for oil and gas prices in this country. We get a few temporary construction jobs while destroying farmland (and related farming jobs) across our entire country. Canada refused to run a pipeline across their country - why should we do it for them?
2. Condemn thousands of people's private property for the benefit of those oil companies (note that this is not a public benefit like a highway - it is for the benefit of a few already very wealthy people). They are condemning one person's private property for the benefit of another private person... as corrupt a policy as can be dreamed up (and thank the US Supreme Court for that moronic, anti-American decision).
Leaks? Don't be stupid! This stuff is so thick it has to be heated to flow. If it leaked it would become a tar-ball and could never reach groundwater. They have so many safeguards and sensors that I'm not worried a bit. Sierra thinks this is the end of the world? NO CUTTING DOWN THE RAINFORESTS IS 1000 TIMES WORSE! Bring it on!
Your knowledge about leaks amazes me...
As a result of a broken pipeline owned by West Shore Pipe Line Co, there was an oil spill in Jackson, WI. Reports estimate about 55,000 gallons of oil leaked. Although the oil spill occurred two weeks ago, it has contaminated the soil in the area, and at least seven residential water wells. Washington County residents were not evacuated from their homes, but some chose to take precautions by voluntarily evacuating. Their well water is still contaminated. Wells go to aquifers....
Big OIL has had it's paws on this project from day one. Why would the State Department be evaluating the project when the EPA was formed just for this type of project?
This is nothing short of raping American land for the benefit of foreign investors for which we will breathe the CO2 and endure the loss of prime farm lands and protected species.
Since Kerry replaced Clinton as Head of the State Department we can see how his attendance at the Bilderberg Group meeting has influenced his decision making.
This project is the very last thing the United States needs to have destroying our environment. We get zero from the project! ZERO!
I can't see doing this unless we benefit from the oil. And we need lasting job opportunities, not short term ones and this is what this project is all about. I used to be for this, but now that I know what it is really about, I'm totally against it. They never give you all the information up front. Sounds like the environmental issues should be addressed. I also heard that under the terms of the deal that they would not carry any responsibility for any disasters that they cause, yet I can't confirm that statement. That alone, pushes me to a no vote. They can transport their oil to their east and west coasts instead of going south and then they can deal with the environment issues over the long term.
Poor Democrabs! This will benefit every state it runs through bringing new tax revenue and some jobs. We already have 30 pipelines running through Nebraska so no big deal. Don't like oil? Invent a semi-tractor that runs on wind or solar. Natural gas????? Obama has done NOTHING to promote it for federal vehicles because Democrabs will whine about fracking.
"no big deal" yeah right! Why don't YOU move to the construction zone and stay there. See how much of a "big deal" it is then. So typically republican to let someone else take the problems and live with them. I haven't met a republican that isn't willing to let SOMEONE ELSE live with the problems created by their greed.
So, our entire infrastructure just "magically" appeared? Wow. Your idiocy is only surpassed by your blatent hypocrisy.
I know refineries take some time to build but speaking strategically, wouldn't it be smart to build a refinery in one of the Dakota's? The Nation took a huge economic hit when Katrina caused so much damage to the Nation's refinery capacity back in 2005. Matter of fact, if you look between then and now, you'll notice not much has changed in comparison to petrol chemicals, cost of diesel and other fuels, and shipping prices have been on the steady incline every since that tragic event. Building a refinery up north to step on the heavy crude, making it a lighter version, and in this same process chemical companies like DuPont etc, could benefit from closer supply lines and the job machine, by doing so, would at least triple. All the while the environmental impact would be about the same, as long as the new refinery emission standards where upheld to current laws. Could-a-would-a?
"wouldn't it be smart to build a refinery in one of the Dakota's?"
I've thought of this, too. I think it would make some sense. First, though, they need to build more natural gas pipelines, as they are currently burning off the gas in certain areas--they can't store it or transport it fast enough. We Minnesotans used to poke fun at NoDaks, but no longer. North Dakota's future looks very bright and I wish them well.
they are not refining it for United States use but to ship to the world. That is why they are wanting to pipe it to Texas coast... Many people ae not enjoying the changes wrought by the oil drilling on their small towns in ND. People will not enjoy the changes Keystone would bring..The pipeline will cross property and ranches that have been in families for generations. WHO cares if the grain growing the field is ruined by oil spills? Canada will not care..
The largest tar sands oil company in Canada was purchased by the Chinese. This will be Chinese and not Canadian oil going down the pipeline. The oil will be sold two ways. First part will go into refineries and the products sold on the world market. Second crude oil will be shipped out of Texas. Valero is already planning on shipping crude oil out of the U.S. This is a flim flam deal by the oil companies and their Repub buddies.
I wonder if China has us over a barrel (pun intended) due to all of the US debt they own--the US bonds they own: "Give us what we want or we will dump all of our bonds on the market at once"
The Republicans have been selling propaganda on oil for ever. Last winter we had a glut of gasoline in this country, but instead of lowering prices at the pump. The oil companies sold it outside the US at a higher profit and they kept US prices up. It doesn't matter how much oil we produce in this country. They will sell it to the highest bidder and we will not see gas prices go down. This pipeline is a joke. We take all the risk and it does nothing for the US. Europe won't even allow tar sands oil to be imported into their countries, because it's so dirty. The 30k temp jobs this pipeline will bring. Will not justify the damage this pipeline will cause when it leaks and they all leak sooner or later.
Most of this oil will have no effect on the price of oil in the U.S and as said before will be shipped overseas just as the last great lie of Alaskan oil that was to reduce the price here in the U.S ,but most of the Alaskan oil was shipped overseas also ! These oil guys are liars !