Why do the DEms hate teh Keystone pipeline so much?

[The Moz 69]

I'm sure there's a plethora of other similar posts on this

 

Not looking for a political troll fest from both sides just wanted to know the legitimate reasons against it? I would of though a Union construction project that will create a lot of jobs would be a no brainer ? Is it really about some environmental aspects or is there another reason? Granted I have not kept up much on politics recently -- been too busy not tipping and hating black people - but seriously I am just wondering why this would even be a discussion as it seems like a win / win for everyone?

[Baker Boy 1,489]

There are already about 2.3 million miles of pipeline across the US, carrying oil and natural gas. Some also carry diluted bitumen, the heavy crude from the tar sands that has a much higher carbon footprint than conventional oil.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jan/31/keystone-xl-oil-pipeline-everything-you-need-to-know

 

Why is 1500 more miles a huge problem?

[penultimatestraw 473]

I'm sure there's a plethora of other similar posts on this

 

Not looking for a political troll fest from both sides just wanted to know the legitimate reasons against it? I would of though a Union construction project that will create a lot of jobs would be a no brainer ? Is it really about some environmental aspects or is there another reason? Granted I have not kept up much on politics recently -- been too busy not tipping and hating black people - but seriously I am just wondering why this would even be a discussion as it seems like a win / win for everyone?

I don't know much about it, but suspect it is mostly environmental reasons. Even if it is just 1500 miles, those miles may be critical habitat for several critters or pristine wilderness which should be protected in the eyes of many. Providing jobs is not an end-all justification either, especially in a field which environmentalists don't want expanded.

[penultimatestraw 473]

I guess there are many issues. From Wikipedia:

Keystone XL controversies[edit]

Environmental issues[edit]

Different environmental groups, citizens, and politicians have raised concerns about the potential negative impacts of the Keystone XL project.^[58][59][60]The main issues are the risk of oil spills along the pipeline, which would traverse highly sensitive terrain, and 17% higher greenhouse gas emissions from the extraction of oil sands compared to extraction of conventional oil.^[61][62] According to the book The Pipeline and the Paradigm by social activist Samuel Avery, fully exploiting the tar sands in Alberta would add between 50 and 60 parts per million of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere over the next figure, raising the total to at least 450 ppm, "the likely threshold level at which critical climate feedback loops take effect and runaway global warmingbegins."^[63]

A concern is that a pipeline spill would pollute air and critical water supplies and harm migratory birds and other wildlife.^[39] Its original route plan crossed the Sandhills, the large wetland ecosystem in Nebraska, and the Ogallala Aquifer, one of the largest reserves of fresh water in the world.^[28][64] The Ogallala Aquifer spans eight states, provides drinking water for two million people, and supports $20 billion in agriculture.^[65] Critics say that a major leak could ruin drinking water and devastate the mid-western U.S. economy.^[29][66] After opposition for laying the pipeline in this area, TransCanada agreed to change the route and skip the Sand Hills.^[27]

Research hydrogeologist James Goeke, professor emeritus at the University of Nebraska, who has spent more than 40 years studying the Ogallala Aquifer, phoned TransCanada officials and quizzed them on the project, and satisfied himself that danger to the aquifer was small, because he believes that a spill would be unlikely to penetrate down into the aquifer, and if it did, he believes that the contamination would be localized. He noted: "A lot of people in the debate about the pipeline talk about how leakage would foul the water and ruin the entire water supply in the state of Nebraska and that's just a false,"^[67] Goeke said "... a leak from the XL pipeline would pose a minimal risk to the aquifer as a whole."^[68]

Pipeline industry spokesmen have noted that thousands of miles of existing pipelines carrying crude oil and refined liquid hydrocarbons have crossed over the Ogallala Aquifer for years, in southeast Wyoming, eastern Colorado and New Mexico, western Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas.^{[69][70][71][72][73]} The Pioneer crude oil pipeline crosses east-west across Nebraska, and the Pony Express pipeline, which crosses the Ogallala Aquifer in Colorado, Nebraska, and Kansas, was being converted as of 2013 from natural gas to crude oil, under a permit from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.^[74]

Portions of the pipeline will also cross an active seismic zone that had a 4.3 magnitude earthquake as recently as 2002.^[65] Opponents claim that TransCanada applied to the U.S. government to use thinner steel and pump at higher pressures than normal.^[66] In October 2011, The New York Timesquestioned the impartiality of the environmental analysis of the pipeline done by Cardno Entrix, an environmental contractor based in Houston. The study found that the pipeline would have limited adverse environmental impacts, but was authored by a firm that had "previously worked on projects with TransCanada and describes the pipeline company as a 'major client' in its marketing materials".^[75]

According to The New York Times, legal experts questioned whether the U.S. government was "flouting the intent" of the Federal National Environmental Policy Act, which "[was] meant to ensure an impartial environmental analysis of major projects".^[75] The report prompted 14 senators and congressmen to ask the State Department inspector general on October 26, 2011 "to investigate whether conflicts of interest tainted the process" for reviewing environmental impact.^[76] In August 2014, a study was published that concluded the pipeline could produce up to 4 times more global warming pollution than the State Department's study indicated. The report blamed the discrepancy on a failure to take account of the increase in consumption due to the drop in the price of oil that would be spurred by the pipeline.^[77]

TransCanada CEO Russ Girling has described the Keystone Pipeline as "routine", noting that TransCanada has been building similar pipelines in North America for half a century and that there are 200,000 miles (320,000 km) of similar oil pipelines in the United States today. He also stated that the Keystone Pipeline will include 57 improvements above standard requirements demanded by U.S. regulators so far, making it "the safest pipeline ever built".^[78] Rep. Ed Whitfield, a member of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce concurred, saying "this is the most technologically advanced and safest pipeline ever proposed."^[79] However, while TransCanada had asserted that a set of 57 conditions will ensure Keystone XL's safe operation, Anthony Swift of the Natural Resources Defense Council asserted that all but a few of these conditions simply restate current minimum standards.^[80]

Environmental organizations such as the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) also oppose the project due to its transportation of oil from oil sands.^[61] In its March 2010 report, the NRDC stated that "the Keystone XL Pipeline undermines the U.S. commitment to a clean energy economy," instead "delivering dirty fuel at high costs".^[81] On June 23, 2010, 50 Democrats in Congress in their letter to

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that "building this pipeline has the potential to undermine America's clean energy future and international leadership on climate change," referencing the higher input quantity of fossil fuels necessary to take the tar and turn it into a usable fuel product in comparison to other conventionally derived fossil fuels.^[82][83]

NASA climate scientist James Hansen stated in 2013 that "moving to tar sands, one of the dirtiest, most carbon-intensive fuels on the planet" is a step in exactly the wrong direction, "indicating either that governments don't understand the situation or that they just don't give a damn".^[83] House Energy and Commerce Committee chairman Henry Waxman has also urged the State Department to block Keystone XL for greenhouse gas emission reasons.^[84][85]

In December 2010, No Tar Sands Oil campaign, sponsored by action groups including Corporate Ethics International, NRDC, Sierra Club, 350.org,National Wildlife Federation, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, and Rainforest Action Network, was launched.^[86]

These arguments were questioned by the National Post columnist Diane Francis who argues that opposition to the pipeline "makes no sense because emissions from the oil sands are a fraction of the emissions from coal and equivalent to California heavy crude oils or ethanol" and questioned why "none of these has been getting the same attention as the oil sands and this pipeline."^[87]

In a speech to the Canadian Club in Toronto on September 23, 2011, Joe Oliver, Canada's Minister of Natural Resources, sharply criticized opponents of oil sands development and the pipeline, arguing that:^[88]

• The total area that has been affected by surface mining represents only 0.1% of Canada's boreal forest.
• The oil sands account for about 0.1% of global greenhouse-gas emissions.
• 
  
• Electricity plants powered by coal in the U.S. generate almost 40 times more greenhouse-gas emissions than Canada's oil sands (the coal-fired electricity plants in the State of Wisconsin alone produce the equivalent of the entire GHG emissions of the oil sands).
• 
  
• California bitumen is more GHG-intensive than the oil sands.
• 
  

Conflicts of interest[edit]

On May 4, 2012, the U.S. Department of State selected Environmental Resources Management (ERM) to author a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, after the Environmental Protection Agency had found previous versions of the study, by contractor Cardno Entrix,^[89] to be extremely inadequate.^[90] Project opponents panned the study on its release, calling it a "deeply flawed analysis".^[91] An investigation by Mother Jones magazinerevealed that the State Department had redacted the biographies of the study's authors to hide their previous contract work for TransCanada and other oil companies with an economic interest in the project.^[92] Based on an analysis of public documents on the State Department website, one critic asserted that "Environmental Resources Management was paid an undisclosed amount under contract to TransCanada to write the statement".^[93]

Political issues[edit]

The pipeline was a top-tier election issue for the November 4, 2014 United States elections for the United States Senate, for U.S. House of Representatives, for governors in states and territories, and for many state and local positions as well. One election-year dilemma facing the Democrats was whether or not Obama should approve the completion of the Keystone XL pipeline.^[94] Tom Steyer, and other wealthy environmentalists, were committed to "make climate change a top-tier issue" in the elections with opposition to Keystone XL as "a significant part of that effort."^[94]

In February 2011, environmental journalist David Sassoon of Inside Climate News reported that Koch Industries were poised to be "big winners" from the pipeline.^[95] In May 2011, Congressmen Waxman and Rush wrote a letter to the Energy and Commerce Committee citing the Reuters story, and urging the Committee to request documents from Koch Industries relating to the Keystone XL pipeline.^[96][97]

Landowners in the path of the pipeline have complained about threats by TransCanada to confiscate private land and lawsuits to allow the "pipeline on their property even though the controversial project has yet to receive federal approval."^[98] As of October 17, 2011, TransCanada had "34 eminent domain actions against landowners in Texas" and "22 in South Dakota." Some of those landowners gave testimony for a House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing in May 2011.^[98] In his book The Pipeline and the Paradigm, Samuel Avery quotes landowner David Daniel in Texas, who claims that TransCanada illegally seized his land via eminent domain by claiming to be a public utility rather than a private firm.^[99]

In January 2012, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.) requested a new report on the environmental review process.^[100]

Diplomatic issues[edit]

Commentator Bill Mann has linked the Keystone postponement to the Michigan Senate's rejection of Canadian funding for the proposed Detroit River International Crossing and to other recent instances of "U.S. government actions (and inactions) that show little concern about Canadian concerns." Mann drew attention to a Maclean's article sub-titled "we used to be friends"^[101] about U.S./Canada relations after President Obama had "insulted Canada (yet again)" over the pipeline.^[102]

Canadian Ambassador Doer observes that Obama's "choice is to have it come down by a pipeline that he approves, or without his approval, it comes down on trains."^[103]

During the 2014 Pacific Northwest Economic Region Summit in Whistler, B.C., Canada’s US Ambassador Gary Doer stated that there is no proof, be it environmental, economic, safety or scientific, that construction work on Keystone XL should not go ahead. Doer said that all the evidence supports a favourable decision by the US government for the controversial pipeline.^[104]

Geopolitical issues[edit]

Proponents for the Keystone XL pipeline argue that it would allow the U.S. to increase its energy security and reduce its dependence on foreign oil.^[105][106] TransCanada CEO Russ Girling has argued that "the U.S. needs 10 million barrels a day of imported oil" and the debate over the proposed pipeline "is not a debate of oil versus alternative energy. This is a debate about whether you want to get your oil from Canada or Venezuela or Nigeria."^[107] However, an independent study conducted by the Cornell ILR Global Labor Institute refers to some studies (e.g. a 2011 study by Danielle Droitsch of Pembina Institute) according to which "a good portion of the oil that will gush down the KXL will probably end up being finally consumed beyond the territorial United States". It also states that the project will increase the heavy crude oil price in the Midwestern United States by diverting oil sands oil from the Midwest refineries to the Gulf Coast and export markets.^[37]

The US Gulf Coast has a large concentration of refineries designed to process very heavy crude oil. At present, the refineries are dependent on heavy crude from Venezuela, including crude from Venezuela’s own massive Orinoco oil sands. The United States is the number one buyer of crude oil exported from Venezuela.^[108] The large trade relationship between the US and Venezuela has persisted despite political tensions between the two countries. However, the volume of oil imported into the US from Venezuela dropped in half from 2007 to 2014, as overall Venezuelan exports have dropped, and also as Venezuela seeks to become less dependent on US purchases of its crude oil. The Keystone pipeline is seen as a way to replace imports of heavy oil-sand crude from Venezuela with more reliable Canadian heavy oil.^[109]

TransCanada's Girling has also argued that if Canadian oil doesn't reach the Gulf through an environmentally friendly buried pipeline, that the alternative is oil that will be brought in by tanker, a mode of transportation that produces higher greenhouse-gas emissions and that puts the environment at greater risk.^[78] Diane Francis has argued that much of the opposition to the oil sands actually comes from foreign countries such as Nigeria, Venezuela, and Saudi Arabia, all of whom supply oil to the United States and who could be affected if the price of oil drops due to the new availability of oil from the pipeline. She cited as an example an effort by Saudi Arabia to stop pro-oil-sands television commercials.^[87] TransCanada had said that development of oil sands will expand regardless of whether the crude oil is exported to the United States or alternatively to Asian markets through Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipelines or Kinder Morgan's Trans-Mountain line.^[110]

Indigenous issues[edit]

Many Native Americans and Indigenous Canadians are opposed to the Keystone XL project for various reasons,^[111] including possible damage to sacred sites, pollution, and water contamination, which could lead to health risks among their communities.^[112]

On September 19, 2011, a number of leaders from Native American bands in the United States and First Nations bands from Canada were arrested for protesting the Keystone XL outside the White House. According to Debra White Plume, a Lakota activist, indigenous peoples "... have thousands of ancient and historical cultural resources that would be destroyed across [their] treaty lands".^[112] TransCanada's Pipeline Permit Application to the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission states project impacts that include potential physical disturbance, demolition or removal of "prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, districts, buildings, structures, objects, and locations with traditional cultural value to Native Americans and other groups".^[113]

Indigenous communities are also concerned with health risks posed by the extension of the Keystone pipeline.^[114] Locally caught fish and untreated surface water would be at risk for contamination through oil sands extraction, and are central to the diets of many indigenous peoples.^[115] Earl Hatley, an environmental activist who has worked with Native American tribes^[116] has expressed concern about the environmental and public health impact on Native Americans.

TransCanada has developed an Aboriginal Relations policy in order to confront some of these conflicts. In 2004, TransCanada Pipelines Ltd. made a major donation to the University of Toronto "to promote education and research in the health of the Aboriginal population".^[117] Another proposed solution is TransCanada's Aboriginal Human Resource Strategy, which was developed to facilitate aboriginal employment and to provide "opportunities for Aboriginal businesses to participate in both the construction of new facilities and the ongoing maintenance of existing facilities"^[118]

Economic issues[edit]

Russ Girling, president and CEO of TransCanada, touted the positive impact of the project by "putting 20,000 US workers to work and spending $7 billion stimulating the US economy".^[119] These numbers come from a 2010 report written by The Perryman Group, a financial analysis firm based in Texas that was hired by TransCanada to evaluate Keystone XL.^[120][121] The numbers in the Perryman Group report have been disputed by an independent study conducted by the Cornell ILR Global Labor Institute, which found that while the Keystone XL would result in 2,500 to 4,650 temporary construction jobs, this impact will be reduced by higher oil prices in the Midwest, which will likely reduce national employment.^[37] However, it will increase gasoline availability to the Northeast and expand the Gulf refining industry. The State Department estimates that the pipeline would create about 5,000 to 6,000 temporary jobs in the United States during the two-year construction period.^[122][123]

On January 27, 2012, Greenpeace Executive Director Phil Radford appealed to the Securities and Exchange Commission to review TransCanada's claims that the Keystone Pipeline would create 20,000 jobs. Stating that the company had "consistently used public statements and information it knows are false in a concerted effort to secure permitting approval" of the pipeline, Radford argued that TransCanada had "misled investors, U.S. and Canadian officials, the media, and the public at large in order to bolster its balance sheets and share price".^[124]

On July 27, 2013, President Obama stated "The most realistic estimates are this might create maybe 2,000 jobs during the construction of the pipeline, which might take a year or two, and then after that we're talking about somewhere between 50 and 100 jobs in an economy of 150 million working people." The estimate of 2,000 during construction came under heavy attack, while the long-term, permanent job estimates did not receive as much criticism.^[125] The Associated Press noted that it was unclear where the president's figure of 2,000 jobs came from. The U.S. State Department's Preliminary Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, issued in March 2013, estimated 3,900 direct jobs and 42,000 direct and indirect jobs during construction.^[126]

There might be unintended economic consequences to the construction of Keystone XL. As an example, the additional north-south crude oil transport capacity brought by Keystone XL will increase the price the oil sands producers receive for their oil. These higher revenues will have a positive impact on the development of the industry in Alberta. In return, due to the Petrodollar nature of the Canadian currency these same additional revenues will strengthen the Canadian dollar versus the United States dollar. Based on historical trends, this stronger Canadian dollar will result in a reduction of the competitiveness of Canada's manufacturing industry and could lead to the loss of 50,000 to 100,000 jobs in Canada's manufacturing sector.^{[127][unreliable source?]} Many of these jobs, such as the ones in the auto industry, would likely find their way south and have a positive impact on manufacturing employment in the U.S.^{[128][not in citation given]}

Glen Perry, a petroleum engineer for Adira Energy, has warned that including the Alberta Clipper pipeline owned by TransCanada's competitor Enbridge, there is an extensive overcapacity of oil pipelines from Canada.^[129] After completion of the Keystone XL line, oil pipelines to the U.S. may run nearly half-empty. The expected lack of volume combined with extensive construction cost overruns has prompted several petroleum refining companies to sue TransCanada. Suncor Energy hoped to recoup significant construction-related tolls, though the U.S. Energy Regulatory Commission did not rule in their favor. According to The Globe and Mail,

Due to an exemption the state of Kansas gave TransCanada, the local authorities would lose $50 million public revenue from property taxes for a decade.^[41]

The refiners argue that construction overruns have raised the cost of shipping on the Canadian portion of Keystone by 145 per cent while the U.S. portion has run 92 per cent over budget. They accuse TransCanada of misleading them when they signed shipping contracts in the summer of 2007. TransCanada nearly doubled its construction estimates in October 2007, from $2.8-billion (U.S.) to $5.2-billion.^[130]

In the United States, Democrats are concerned that Keystone XL would not provide petroleum products for domestic use, but simply facilitate getting Alberta oil sands products to American coastal ports on the Gulf of Mexico for export to China and other countries.^[56]

Frustrated by delays in getting approval for Keystone XL (via the Gulf of Mexico), the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipelines (via Kitimat, BC) and the expansion of the existing TransMountain line to Vancouver, Alberta has intensified exploration of two northern projects "to help the province get its oil to tidewater, making it available for export to overseas markets".^[131] Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, spent $9 million by May 2012 and $16.5 million by May 2013 to promote Keystone XL.^[56] Until Canadian crude oil accesses international prices like LLS or Maya crude oil by "getting to tidewater" (south to the U.S. Gulf ports via Keystone XL for example, west to the BC Pacific coast via the proposed Northern Gateway line to ports at Kitimat, BC or north via the northern hamlet of Tuktoyaktuk, near the Beaufort Sea),^[131] the Alberta government (and to some extent, the Canadian government) is losing from $4 – 30 billion in tax and royalty revenues as the primary product of the oil sands, Western Canadian Select(WCS), the bitumen crude oil basket, is discounted so heavily against West Texas Intermediate (WTI) while Maya crude oil, a similar product close to tidewater, is reaching peak prices.^[132] Calgary-based Canada West Foundation warned in April 2013, that Alberta is "running up against a [pipeline capacity] wall around 2016, when we will have barrels of oil we can't move".^[131]

Pipeline opponents warn of disruption of farms and ranches during construction,^[133] and point to damage to water mains and sewage lines sustained during construction of an Enbridge crude oil pipeline in Michigan.^[134] A report by the Cornell University Global Labor Institute noted of the 2010 Enbridge Tar Oil Spill along the Kalamazoo River in Michigan: "The experience of Kalamazoo residents and businesses provides an insight into some of the ways a community can be affected by a tar sands pipeline spill. Pipeline spills are not just an environmental concern. Pipeline spills can also result in significant economic and employment costs, although the systematic tracking of the social, health, and economic impacts of pipeline spills is not required by law. Leaks and spills from Keystone XL and other tar sands and conventional crude pipelines could put existing jobs at risk.."^[133]

Safety issue[edit]

A USA Today editorial pointed out that the 2013 Lac-Mégantic derailment in Quebec, in which crude oil carried by rail cars exploded and killed 47 people,^[135] highlights the safety of pipelines compared to truck or rail transport. The oil in the Lac-Mégantic rail cars came from the Bakken Formation in North Dakota, an area that would be served by the Keystone expansion.^[136] Increased oil production in North Dakota has exceeded pipeline capacity since 2010, leading to increasing volumes of crude oil being shipped by truck or rail to refineries.^[137] Canadian journalist Diana Furchtgott-Roth commented: "If this oil shipment had been carried through pipelines, instead of rail, families in Lac-Mégantic would not be grieving for lost loved ones today, and oil would not be polluting Lac Mégantic and the Chaudière River."^[138] A Wall Street Journal article in March 2014 points out that the main reason oil producers from the North Dakota Bakken Shale region are using rail and trucks to transport oil is economics not pipeline capacity. The Bakken oil is of a higher quality than the Canadian Sand oil and can be sold to east coast refinery at a premium that they would not get sending it to Gulf refineries.^[139] The article goes on to state that there is little support remaining among these producers for the Keystone XL.

[MTSkiBum 1,597]

I hope it fails. Oil is cheap enough right now, any lower and the oil industry faces layoffs.

 

It is ironic that a congressman from Louisiana is pushing the bill. Louisiana should hate the pipeline. Canada can produce oil cheaper than the gulf. First place that will see layoffs is the gulf.

[penultimatestraw 473]

I hope it fails. Oil is cheap enough right now, any lower and the oil industry faces layoffs.

 

Louisiana should hate the pipeline. Canada can produce oil cheaper than the gulf.

If the pipeline promotes the purchase of one more gas-guzzling SUV/truck to nearly run me over on my commute, I'm against it too.

[The Moz 69]

I hope it fails. Oil is cheap enough right now, any lower and the oil industry faces layoffs.

 

It is ironic that a congressman from Louisiana is pushing the bill. Louisiana should hate the pipeline. Canada can produce oil cheaper than the gulf. First place that will see layoffs is the gulf.

yet Gas prices are still over 3 bucks? what gives?

[MTSkiBum 1,597]

yet Gas prices are still over 3 bucks? what gives?

 

It makes sense. I have done the math before.

 

 

Shipping oil from Canada to a port in the gulf will not help gasoline prices in northern united states.

[penultimatestraw 473]

yet Gas prices are still over 3 bucks? what gives?

Even though you've arbitrarily determined a "fair" price for gas, 3 bucks a gallon really isn't that expensive?

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

Personally, I don't much care. But I imagine most dems are against it because...

 

1. It will make billions for the oil companies, and yet not help the American consumer one iota at the pump.

 

2. I'm sure the plan is to have a deregulated cheaply built ticking environmental time bomb, like usual.

[Magnificent Bastard 190]

The real question is, why do you love it so much? It's not going to lower gas prices. And the OPEC countries can just drop their price lower and make it unprofitable to use them tar sands. This whole thing sounds like a pump and dump to me. OPEC lowers price, tar sands useless, OPEC then raises prices. As far as jobs, they will mostly be temporary. Once the piping is finished, those jobs go away.

[Sho Nuff 719]

The real question is, why do you love it so much?

 

Because a guy with an R next to his name told him to.

 

If it was something that would significantly help our economy at a minimum actual risk...I would be all for it.

I have seen zero actual evidence to support that and thus, can't be all gung ho about it.

[IGotWorms 3,339]

Because it reminds me of Keystone beer and I hate that cheap shiat

[Voltaire 4,570]

You'd probably have to ask a Dem but some guesses:

 

1) Since the Republicans support it, they must oppose it.

 

2) All oil and carbon anything is always bad.

 

3) Rivers and streams and aquifers along the path are susceptible to leaking/contamination.

 

4) The Koch brothers will make tons of money because they are heavily invested in the tar sands and they're the debbil x 2.

 

5) The tar pits are really, really extremely ugly. It looks like Mordor up there.

 

6) The surrounding area is nice though until they poisoned it. Now pollution, cancer, and assorted bad stuff are happening to the people, fish, wildlife that live near the tar pits.

[gutterslut 1]

Why would the US give land to Canada to ship their oil to the Gulf to be sold to other countries. The jobs are not permanent and how many would actually get them.

 

Yes, oil is always going to be bad the dems say and repubs (read: money) are oil people.

[Reality 2,710]

After reading through these comments people seem to be confused about what this project actually is and proposes to do. The quote below actually sums it up nicely.

 

The Keystone XL pipeline started pumping crude from Alberta to the refineries on the Gulf of Mexico almost a year ago. Did the US congress pass a bill to allow the construction of the full pipeline? If not why does it need to pass a bill for this proposed bypass, if it did then why wasn't it as partisan of an issue as it is now, why wasn't it being screamed about a few years ago like this proposed section is?

 

From an environmental standpoint: The proposed, and highly controversial, bypass will shorten the entire length of the pipeline by just over 1000 miles. Thats 1,000 miles less pipe that could possibly spring a leak. This proposed bypass will also drastically decrease the area of aquifer covered by the pipeline, why isn't this being seen as better than the status quo from an environmental POV?

 

 

Below is a link to a map that shows what has already been completed and what is being proposed.

 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/43/Keystone-pipeline-route.png

[SUXBNME 1,345]

Last I heard they don't hate it anymore

 

Must be a post election kinda thinking process.

[drobeski 3,061]

Because it will create jobs and they hate working ?

[HenryHill9323 65]

Dems claim it is because of the environment.

 

But if Keystone isn't built Canada is going to build a longer pipeline to their East coast, and then the oil will be loaded onto ships that will hug the US coast from New England to the refineries in Texas. So, environmentally speaking, Keystone is much better than what will happen if they stop it.

 

Once again, the Dem position lacks logic and common sense.

[rholio 339]

Dems claim it is because of the environment.

 

But if Keystone isn't built Canada is going to build a longer pipeline to their East coast, and then the oil will be loaded onto ships that will hug the US coast from New England to the refineries in Texas. So, environmentally speaking, Keystone is much better than what will happen if they stop it.

 

Once again, the Dem position lacks logic and common sense.

 

It's got to be the environmentalists, although since they moved the route out of the Sand Hills area, I don't see the problem. The eminent domain stuff would piss me off, though. From penultimatestraw's article:

Landowners in the path of the pipeline have complained about threats by TransCanada to confiscate private land and lawsuits to allow the "pipeline on their property even though the controversial project has yet to receive federal approval."^[98] As of October 17, 2011, TransCanada had "34 eminent domain actions against landowners in Texas" and "22 in South Dakota." Some of those landowners gave testimony for a House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing in May 2011.^[98] In his book The Pipeline and the Paradigm, Samuel Avery quotes landowner David Daniel in Texas, who claims that TransCanada illegally seized his land via eminent domain by claiming to be a public utility rather than a private firm.^[99]

 

[HenryHill9323 65]

 

It's got to be the environmentalists, although since they moved the route out of the Sand Hills area, I don't see the problem. The eminent domain stuff would piss me off, though. From penultimatestraw's article:

 

That is what I said. But the result of opposing Keystone is worse for the environment because of what I outlined above. Also, oil will still be shipped via truck and train through the US.

 

Environmentalists do not use logic and common sense.

[rholio 339]

 

That is what I said. But the result of opposing Keystone is worse for the environment because of what I outlined above. Also, oil will still be shipped via truck and train through the US.

 

Environmentalists do not use logic and common sense.

Agreed.

[NorthernVike 2,080]

Shot down. couldn't get up to 60 votes to prevent a filibuster. One short.

 

 

Dumb

[Mungwater 588]

The lady just brought it to vote to help her campaign, they'll have no troubles passing this in January.

[Cruzer 1,992]

yet Gas prices are still over 3 bucks? what gives?

I paid $2.43 yesterday.

[HenryHill9323 65]

The lady just brought it to vote to help her campaign, they'll have no troubles passing this in January.

It won't save her.

[Magnificent Bastard 190]

The real question is, why do you love it so much? It's not going to lower gas prices. And the OPEC countries can just drop their price lower and make it unprofitable to use them tar sands. This whole thing sounds like a pump and dump to me. OPEC lowers price, tar sands useless, OPEC then raises prices. As far as jobs, they will mostly be temporary. Once the piping is finished, those jobs go away.

[Magnificent Bastard 190]

Yeah, I think I got it right

[The Moz 69]

The real question is, why do you love it so much? It's not going to lower gas prices. And the OPEC countries can just drop their price lower and make it unprofitable to use them tar sands. This whole thing sounds like a pump and dump to me. OPEC lowers price, tar sands useless, OPEC then raises prices. As far as jobs, they will mostly be temporary. Once the piping is finished, those jobs go away.

 

I paid $2.43 yesterday.

Fracking has helped il prices to drop -- OPEC is for now keeping poduction the same but soon fracking will become non cost effective once the price drops too low.

[Voltaire 4,570]

Between the tar sands and fracking, the US/Canada now have the resources in the toolbox to exert downward pressure on oil prices to get out from their addiction to OPEC oil. It's now impossible for OPEC to coordinate cutting oil supplies to fock over the rest of the planet anymore.

[Magnificent Bastard 190]

And once the tar sands shut down, OPEC will cut production, prices back up. So next time you hear a political party, especially the one owned by the oil companies, talk about a president having an affect on oil prices, pay no mind. It's just a misdirection. And just like the mortgage meltdown, I suspect we will find out that the boys in the know were shorting oil and certain stocks, all the while making you think a pipeline would solve the problems. Suckers

[Giants Fan 85]

Mostly this:

 

http://www.foe.org/projects/climate-and-energy/tar-sands

 

An oil pipeline of crude, like was found in Texas ... has far less environmental damage, than this tar sand oil, when it comes to extraction and refining.

 

Tar sand oil should be a last resort. Like, when all the oil is gone, and we still need oil ... that's when we should start talking about refining that stuff.

[Bert 1,096]

 

Because a guy with an R next to his name told him to.

 

If it was something that would significantly help our economy at a minimum actual risk...I would be all for it.

I have seen zero actual evidence to support that and thus, can't be all gung ho about it.

Pipelines are safer, better for the enviroment and cheaper than trains and trucks.

 

 

ETA: Forcing Canada to build pipelines to their east and west coasts so they can sell their oil to countries other ours makes perfect sense.

[Bert 1,096]

The opposition originally started from enviros that foolishly thought stopping Keystone would slow the production of tar sand oil in Alberta. Obama needed the enviros to get elected so he jumped in after Hillary had given preliminary approval and then the enviros in Nebraska got started.

[Baker Boy 1,489]

Follow the money people. Look at who is making money today shipping this by rail and who they supported politically.

 

 

 

 

And in other news this project has been completed.

 

Flanagan South Pipeline Project

 

Enbridge Pipelines (FSP) L.L.C. is nearing completion of construction on the Flanagan South Pipeline Project a nearly 600-mile, 36-inch diameter interstate crude oil pipeline that originates in Pontiac, Ill. and terminates in Cushing, Okla., crossing Illinois, Missouri, Kansas, and Oklahoma. The majority of the pipeline parallels Enbridges Spearhead crude oil pipeline right-of-way. Enbridge is also installing seven pump stations including one at the Flanagan Terminal and six along the pipeline route. Initial capacity will be approximately 600,000 barrels per day (bpd), with an ultimate design capacity of about 880,000 bpd after pumping-power enhancements.

 

The Flanagan South Pipeline Project will provide the additional capacity needed to bring increased North American crude oil production to refinery hubs on the U.S. Gulf Coast. The Flanagan South Pipeline Project will provide a long-term, stable, and reliable source of energy for the United States, enhancing the nations energy security. Communities located along the pipeline route may benefit from property taxes over the life of the pipeline, as well as from the creation of high-paying construction and manufacturing jobs, and associated economic activity during construction.

http://www.enbridge.com/FlanaganSouthPipeline.aspx

[Bert 1,096]

Follow the money people. Look at who is making money today shipping this by rail and who they supported politically.

 

 

 

 

And in other news this project has been completed.

 

Flanagan South Pipeline Project

 

Enbridge Pipelines (FSP) L.L.C. is nearing completion of construction on the Flanagan South Pipeline Project a nearly 600-mile, 36-inch diameter interstate crude oil pipeline that originates in Pontiac, Ill. and terminates in Cushing, Okla., crossing Illinois, Missouri, Kansas, and Oklahoma. The majority of the pipeline parallels Enbridges Spearhead crude oil pipeline right-of-way. Enbridge is also installing seven pump stations including one at the Flanagan Terminal and six along the pipeline route. Initial capacity will be approximately 600,000 barrels per day (bpd), with an ultimate design capacity of about 880,000 bpd after pumping-power enhancements.

 

The Flanagan South Pipeline Project will provide the additional capacity needed to bring increased North American crude oil production to refinery hubs on the U.S. Gulf Coast. The Flanagan South Pipeline Project will provide a long-term, stable, and reliable source of energy for the United States, enhancing the nations energy security. Communities located along the pipeline route may benefit from property taxes over the life of the pipeline, as well as from the creation of high-paying construction and manufacturing jobs, and associated economic activity during construction.

http://www.enbridge.com/FlanaganSouthPipeline.aspx

This makes no sense. Enbridge is a Canadian Pipeline company like Trans-Canada not a railroad.

[parrot 789]

This makes no sense. Enbridge is a Canadian Pipeline company like Trans-Canada not a railroad.

 

That was a veiled shot at Warren Buffett, even though he has come out in favor of Keystone. In Phurboy's world there always has to be some dark conspiracy at work. It can never be as simple as a stupid political stalemate just for the sake of political stalemate, even though those things happen every focking day in our system.

[DankNuggs 305]

because they are stupid and forget that it is either carried by a pipeline, which is relatively efficient, or by tanker trucks which are very inefficient and have much higher probabilities of spillage and atmospheric emissions...

 

They also stupidly believe if the pipeline isn't constructed than it won't be harvested.

[Bert 1,096]

because they are stupid and forget that it is either carried by a pipeline, which is relatively efficient, or by tanker trucks which are very inefficient and have much higher probabilities of spillage and atmospheric emissions...

 

They also stupidly believe if the pipeline isn't constructed than it won't be harvested.

If he wanted to do that than something like this would be more appropriate:

 

http://stories.weather.com/boom

[DankNuggs 305]

If he wanted to do that than something like this would be more appropriate:

 

http://stories.weather.com/boom

ignored problems don't exist in their world. The problem only is realized when it can be leveraged politically.