Environmental Report Raises Pressure On Obama To Approve Keystone Pipeline 301
Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "Reuters reports that pressure on President Obama to approve the Keystone XL pipeline increased on Friday after a State Department report played down the impact it would have on climate change, irking environmentalists and delighting proponents of the project. The long-awaited environmental impact statement concludes that the Keystone XL pipeline would not substantially worsen carbon pollution, leaving an opening for Obama to approve the politically divisive project as it appears to indicate that the project could pass the criteria Obama set forth in a speech last summer when he said he would approve the 1,700-mile pipeline if it would not 'significantly exacerbate' the problem of greenhouse gas emissions. The oil industry applauded the review. 'After five years and five environmental reviews, time and time again the Department of State analysis has shown that the pipeline is safe for the environment,' says Cindy Schild, the senior manager of refining and oil sands programs at the American Petroleum Institute, which lobbies for the oil industry. Environmentalists say they are dismayed at some of the report's conclusions and disputed its objectivity, and add that the report also offers Obama reasons to reject the pipeline. The report concludes that the process used for producing the oil — by extracting what are called tar sands or oil sands from the Alberta forest — creates about 17 percent more greenhouse gas emissions than traditional oil (PDF). But the report concludes that this heavily polluting oil will still be brought to market. Energy companies are already moving the oil out of Canada by rail. 'At the end of the day, there's a consensus among most energy experts that the oil will get shipped to market no matter what,' says Robert McNally. 'It's less important than I think it was perceived to be a year ago, both politically and on oil markets.'"
Well, Heck... No Wonder! (Score:4, Insightful)
"The long-awaited environmental impact statement concludes that the Keystone XL pipeline would not substantially worsen carbon pollution..."
Pretty hard to "worsen" something that doesn't exist... Carbon is NOT a pollutant.
Funny, you don't hear anybody talking about "Oxygen Pollution", even though oxygen makes up more of CO2 than carbon does, and in fact in high concentrations oxygen is poisonous, but carbon is not.
Re:Well, Heck... No Wonder! (Score:4, Funny)
Carbon is NOT a pollutant.
Exactly. If carbon is so bad, why are they aways trying to save all those carbon filled trees?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Carbon is NOT a pollutant.
Exactly. If carbon is so bad, why are they always trying to save all those carbon filled trees?
I'm sure if all those trees were floating around in the upper atmosphere, they might feel differently.
Re: (Score:2)
"Um... Mine was a serious comment *and* joke, so back at yo"
As a serious comment it failed then, because it's out of context.
The discussion here is about MAN-MADE pollution. Not volcanic eruptions. Moving the goalposts does not get you out from under the Whoosh.
Re:Well, Heck... No Wonder! (Score:4, Interesting)
Anything is a pollutant when large quantities are somewhere they shouldn't be. Having lots of carbon in the atmosphere is bad. You can deny the science until you're blue in the face, but you're no different from the creationists.
Mind you, I don't really care one way or the other about the pipeline.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"Anything is a pollutant when large quantities are somewhere they shouldn't be."
That doesn't justify the recent "fad" of "carbon pollution".
I mean, your point is correct of course but scarcely relevant to this situation. The carbon in CO2 is no more a demon than the oxygen in CO2. And even if ALL the carbon in CO2 were free carbon particles in the air, it still wouldn't be very poisonous. (You might get black lung eventually, but that doesn't make it a "poison" in the conventional sense.)
But again: even in the case of CO2 (which is what people are really referring to -- so far --
Re:Well, Heck... No Wonder! (Score:5, Informative)
You understand that when people talk about "carbon pollution", they mean carbon dioxide, right? You clearly do, since you say as much at the end of your post. So why are you talking as if anyone is concerned about free carbon particles floating around? We all know we're talking about CO2.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"You understand that when people talk about "carbon pollution", they mean carbon dioxide, right? You clearly do, since you say as much at the end of your post. So why are you talking as if anyone is concerned about free carbon particles floating around? We all know we're talking about CO2."
Sure. For now. But will it stay that way? Probably not.
Understand something: regardless of whether climate scientists are correct about CO2-based warming, it isn't just about the science. It's also about control. The phrase "carbon pollution" is no accidental turn of phrase, and Al Gore doesn't "accidentally" own shares in companies that profit from "warming" scares.
Strictly regulating CO2 would give the government unprecedented control over the air. Control of "carbon", if the idea could be promoted
Re:Well, Heck... No Wonder! (Score:4, Insightful)
"You understand that when people talk about "carbon pollution", they mean carbon dioxide, right?"
I would also like to point out that the New York Times article linked to by OP very definitely DOES imply, in at least several different places, that carbon per se is a pollutant we need to worry about today. Which is both stupid and wrong.
The Humpty Dumpty defence. (Score:2, Informative)
that carbon per se is a pollutant we need to worry about today. Which is both stupid and wrong.
If you don't accept the science on AGW (and we all know you don't) then of course carbon is not a harmful pollutant in your eyes, but it's still a pollutant using the literal meaning of the word as in "I don't pollute my scotch with water". The reason the anti-science mob that feed you this information keep repeating the (stupid and wrong) mantra "CO2 is not a pollution" is that "pollution" has a very specific definition in US law, one that they do not want applied to their own activities.
You are of cour
Re: (Score:2)
So you'd have no problem if I dumped a ton of soot on, in, and around your house?
P.S. Several isn't an exact number, so "at least several" doesn't make any sense at all.
Re: (Score:3)
'Carbon pollution' is used as a shorthand for the several carbon-based greenhouse gases (released by human activity) that are heating up our atmosphere by trapping solar radiation.
carbon dioxide of course is the main anthropogenic culprit from fossil fuels; but it also covers methane (CH4), which is a more potent greenhouse gas per mole than CO2 and comes primarily from natural gas and oil mining, and then animal based food production, and finally landfills. Carbon monoxide is also a greenhouse gas, though
Re: (Score:3)
"Carbon" is NOT put into the atmosphere in huge quantities, at least by the Western world. Particulates are strictly regulated.
Stop saying that. There are strict regulations, but they aren't enforced strictly.
It is CARBON DIOXIDE, not carbon, that is the alleged culprit here.
What the living fuck is carbon dioxide made of? Do you think the oxygen is the problem? Because it sure as shit isn't.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm still trying to figure out how it's bad when during earths periods of the highest biodiversity and quite literally greenest periods ever, the carbom PPM was 20 times as high as it is now. The climate was much warmer as well, and we had extremely large macro scale life (dinosaurs, very large dragonflies and mosquitos, etc.)
I keep hearing that if the carbon PPM gets too high, the oceans will acidify and/or evaporate. So why the fuck didn't that happen 100 million years ago? The earth was 8C warmer, never
Re: (Score:3)
It's not 'bad' objectively, for life in general, but it's bad for us - humans. It would make tropical and subtropical areas of the world unbearable to live in (noting that the majority of the earth's population live in such areas. Heat waves would regularly plague temperate areas too. Agriculture and thus our food supply would be severely disrupted.
Similarly with the oceans - they would have been far more acidic in the dinosaur's age than they are currently. There are life forms that can thrive in those co
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
When they say "Carbon" they're actually referring to "Carbon Dioxide"
I think that was a big part of the original poster's point. It's real sloppy wording.
so an increase in CO2 would have a detrimental effect on the environment
It'd also have a positive effect on the environment. It all depends on your point of view.
Re: (Score:2)
Most people are not pedants or morons, so when carbon is used in climate discussions, folks can sort out you're not talking about graphite or diamonds. Besides there is some legitimacy to using the generic term carbon as many fossil fuels start out with fairly complex organic compounds, the commonality being CO2 emissions.
Re: (Score:3)
@anonymouscoward # 46135213:
Do you buy food from the grocery store? Better cut that shit out because fossil fuels transported and/or harvested it. Enabling you to live in your nice suburban comfort.
Do you drive a car? Ride in a car? Ride in a bus? Better cut that shit out too.
Do you live in a house? Sorry some of that machinery was powered by fossil fuels.
I know you use electricity, but isn't most of it (at least in the US) made by *gasp* fossil fuels?
If there is a problem you're a part of it as much as any
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It seems you need either a little more or way less coffee at this point. Step away from the keyboard and go for a walk.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When they say "Carbon" they're actually referring to "Carbon Dioxide"
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
in fact in high concentrations oxygen is poisonous, but carbon is not.
Yea, you'd choke to death long before you'd die of carbon poisoning. And pollution is context based. If it's causing a measurable externality from the quantity of the compound in the environment, then it is a pollutant.
Re: (Score:2)
"Classic projection."
How so? Please explain how anything I stated was an example of "projection". HE was arguing with a statement I made to someone else!
And why make an anonymous coward the target of your vitriol?
Because that particular AC, whom I recognize, has made me a target of HIS, of course. But then you knew that.
Re: (Score:2)
"And you recognize that other AC so well that you fail to see we're the same person? Fail much? Here... I'll greet you in our traditional fashion, since we're such great friends:"
What? You really weren't smart enough to figure out what
"But then you knew that?"
meant?
That's pretty funny.
Re: (Score:2)
Congratulations, you are technically correct, the best kind of correct.
Now, see how far it gets you when millions of people fleeing the coastlines drive your property prices down.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Now, see how far it gets you when millions of people fleeing the coastlines drive your property prices down."
In order for that to happen, the seal level would have to rise significantly, and at a far higher rate than it actually has been rising over the last century.
Even if IPCC's worst-case projections were correct, you have about a century before it would be a meter above where it is now. Better start fleeing.
Re: (Score:2)
"Now, see how far it gets you when millions of people fleeing the coastlines drive your property prices down."
In order for that to happen, the seal level would have to rise significantly, and at a far higher rate than it actually has been rising over the last century. Even if IPCC's worst-case projections were correct, you have about a century before it would be a meter above where it is now. Better start fleeing.
Obviously, that depends entirely on where you live (like New Orleans) - even if you actually meant "seal level" - which actually sounds way scarier (and noisier) than rising sea level. [Bark, bark, bark...]
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously, that depends entirely on where you live (like New Orleans)...
The residents of New Orleans should have fled a century AGO. Living in a coastal area that was already below sea level is not a shining example of human intelligence.
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously, that depends entirely on where you live (like New Orleans)...
The residents of New Orleans should have fled a century AGO. Living in a coastal area that was already below sea level is not a shining example of human intelligence.
Absolutely no argument here, just stating an easy example... Virginia Beach (where I live) is only an average of 12 feet (3.7m) above sea level, though.
Re: (Score:2)
Nitrogen is major constituent of the atmosphere. Now go sit for an hour in a room that is pure nitrogen and let me know how it turns out.
Re: (Score:2)
"Nitrogen is major constituent of the atmosphere. Now go sit for an hour in a room that is pure nitrogen and let me know how it turns out."
And how is this relevant to my point? Are you trying to say we have "global nitrogen pollution"?
Re: (Score:2)
Virtually any substance can be a potential pollutant if it sufficiently alters the environment.
Wouldn't you say, form instance, acidification of the oceans is a byproduct of CO2 emissions, and thus CO2 is a pollutant.
Re: (Score:2)
While I acknowledge that it is technically true, I don't see that it has any bearing on the subject at hand. If you define "pollutant" that way, then anything at all can be a pollutant (water, for example). Which pretty much sucks any real meaning out of the discussion.
Re: (Score:3)
What "carbon pollution" refers to is obviously carbon dioxide, which is both poisonous (by your own criteria) and a pollutant.
Playing dumb should never be an acceptable tactic in any discussion.
Re: (Score:2)
"Playing dumb should never be an acceptable tactic in any discussion."
I was tempted to write something else, but I will restrain myself. I will leave it at this: WHOOSH... it went right over your head. You might want to think about it a bit. Maybe it will come to you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Well, Heck... No Wonder! (Score:4, Insightful)
Carbon monoxide.
Seeing as how every organic compound that exists, which includes nutrients and poisons, is based on carbon, just naming things that have carbon in them is pointless.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I guess maybe I offended somebody's religious beliefs.
Re: (Score:3)
In the normal sense of "air pollution" that I grew up with, no one would consider CO2 to be a pollutant. It's accepted as one by a generation that has never experienced real air pollution. It's simply not the same kind of emission as e.g. sulfur compounds, or particulates. It doesn't case irritation, provoke asthma attacks, cause cancer, corrode building and statues. Maybe it's bad - I don't know - but it's certainly not the same kind of bad.
People who want to regulate CO2 as "air pollution" are simpl
Re: (Score:3)
The other half of that seemingly always conveniently left out intentionally or due to ignorance is that not only do corporations get to do what they want, but so does the customer as well as new entrants to the market.
Want to start a car company that builds better cars or delivers them in a better way?
Re: (Score:2)
Carbon monoxide acts like poisonous imitation oxygen.
So do all of these things. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L... [wikipedia.org] But yet, some of those very things are also food... Hmm... Perhaps because we are life forms based on... Hmmm... I knew what it was... They say it all the time on Star Trek...
Horse... barndoor... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Horse... barndoor... (Score:5, Informative)
Those oils sands are already being dug up and processed, and the market is not going to let anything get in the way of that.
Specifically, US regulators have no business getting in the way of that, because it's in Canada. Obama can't do anything to stop that.
Re:Horse... barndoor... (Score:4, Insightful)
Lac-Megantic, Quebec anyone? One thing about pipelines is that they don't tend to go through the centers of every small town along their route.
The impact of trucking/training is worse (Score:3)
than a pipeline. Not only does it cost more energy to ship oil via trains and trucks, the risk of accident seems much higher per barrel moved.
And right now, it's being trained and trucked around.
--PM
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Except, any single truck load of oil spilled can be contained relatively easily. The max potential is limited to the one truck and chances are it'll happen on a road, making it easy/fast both to identify (who's not going to notice a turned semi on an interstate) and to send emergency crews. At worst any single incident will disrupt traffic for a few hours.
Not so much when a 36" pipe busts open...in the middle of no where... Unlimited potential damage, difficult to spot (sensors don't catch everything), d
Except Except (Score:4, Interesting)
Except, any single truck load of oil spilled can be contained relatively easily.
What? It could go anywhere. You may have no idea where a stray barrel went, and it could go in some very bad places...
With a pipeline, you have fixed regions that can possibly be affected. The very ground under the pipelined can be lined to prevent any impact from spills at all. The pipeline can, and will be monitored because it is of course a valuable resource and they don't want oil to be lost any more than any environmentalist.
What you are saying makes zero sense, pipelines are a dramatically safer and more efficient way to transport oil.
Re:The impact of trucking/training is worse (Score:4, Insightful)
The ironic part of your arguement is your argueing that oil that was scooped up in dirt, and extracted, would be impossible to clean up if it spilled back into the dirt!
Re:The impact of trucking/training is worse (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, over forty people could be killed and half of downtown destroyed! Oh wait, that wasn't a pipeline. [wikipedia.org]
What rock didn't get that news?
Even so, in what world is transporting oil in vehicles safer? Is your heart at ease when an SUV drives around crossing gates, barely clearing the tracks before a 40 car train of tankers moving at 70MPH rolls through? Do you live for the moments when you're driving among several of these tankers on the interstate? Or behind one at a railroad crossing [baltimoresun.com] (while it was a gasoline truck, I can't imagine the effect of oil being much better).
Re: (Score:2)
There's definitely a PROFIT impact if the railroads that Obama's fellatio buddy Warren Buffet's railroad no longer is hauling the oil in rail cars, because the pipeline has replaced them. If Obama approves the pipeline, Warren would probably tell Obama to wipe off his chin and get the fuck out.
Re: Horse... barndoor... (Score:4, Interesting)
Considering that there's already hundreds of pipelines already running through those "several states" I'd say no. But the people who are opposed to this seem to keep forgetting that.
Slow on the uptake? (Score:3)
right, because there's no environmental impact to a giant pipeline leaking into groundwater through several states, right?
I'm curious about how a few leaks over decades compare to EXPLODING TRAINS?
keep trolling
Keep ignoring reality. On second thought, don't.
Why is a pipeline needed? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe it's more efficient to transport one product to refineries all over and let them break it out into all the various end products closer to where they're actually being used?
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe it's more efficient to transport one product to refineries all over and let them break it out into all the various end products closer to where they're actually being used?
Oil can be and is refined into many different products, so that might be true if those refineries all over will extract/use everything. Otherwise it might make more sense to ship the crude oil fewer places that can extract everything, then ship only the refined products the remote places want. The crude oil and various refined, extraneous, and by- products can be better monitored, controlled and regulated if consolidated in fewer places.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Easy to raise fuel costs and exports (Score:2)
Funny that the pipleline seems to go to a port. You think the gas companies are going to ship it to Galveston right near the port of houston just to sell the gas back to us for $3.50 a gallon or sell it to China for $9.00 a gallon?
Hmm which decision do you think it will come too.
Expect an end to cheap fuel prices and another recession in the midst with hyperinflation. After all most of us westerns live on the east or west coasts while our food is produced in the center. The cost of getting your starbucks co
Re: (Score:2)
Do you think that the Obama government is going to grant the permits to allow such refineries to be built?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
A refinery in Canada is not going to need US approval
Re: (Score:2)
Well you're right. But just not from the government in the US. See in Canada we're dealing with a massive influx of environut dollars from groups like the Tides Foundation among others who are engaged in political activism. This is of course illegal in Canada, and said groups are being investigated now by the RCMP and the CRA(IRS equiv).
If you want to really piss off Canadians, this is how you do it. People here don't take kindly to wingnuts in foreign countries engaging in hypocrisy, or trying to tell
Re:Why is a pipeline needed? (Score:4, Informative)
They claim it is to be able to push it to the refineries, but if that was true, why not build some refineries on or near the USA / Canadian boarder?
Because there are huge regulatory obstacles to building refineries. In the US there have only been a small handful of refineries built in the past few decades since the advent of the EPA. According to here [eia.gov] there have been 15 refineries built in the US since the EPA was founded in 1970 and a total of 143 in existence. Two small new refineries in North Dakota are under construction.
Glancing at the Wikipedia page on the Keystone XL Pipeline, it's expected to have a maximum flow of around 600k barrels per day. In comparison, the US consumes somewhat shy [eia.gov] of 40 million barrels of various petroleum products per day.
Even if that oil was refined, the resulting products would still need to be moved to where they'll be consumed.
Re: (Score:2)
Because there are huge regulatory obstacles to building refineries. In the US there have only been a small handful of refineries built in the past few decades since the advent of the EPA
You mean since the EPA was created by that notorious liberal hippie Richard Nixon?
As a response to an escalating series of environmental disasters, culminating in the largest oil spill of its time?
Even if that oil was refined, the resulting products would still need to be moved to where they'll be consumed.
Right. To China.
Which is the entire point of piping the oil down to Texas, because there's already shipping infrastructure in the Gulf of Mexico.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yup, build the refineries in ND where there is plenty of oiil, and power them with natural gas.
Having all our refineries in the gulf, where they will have to shut down every time there is a hurricane (which is happening more frequently with climate change) is stupid.
And also that tar sands oil is not just hydrocarbons, theres other shit in it, remember that pipeline leak in Arkansaw
Re:Why is a pipeline needed? (Score:4, Interesting)
Refineries are closing in the US despite a shortage of refining capacity. Why is that? Because its about 100 times harder to get a refinery built then to build a stupid pipe line. So tell you what, you pre-approve a refinery near the Canadian border and we'll stop pushing for the entirely sensible pipeline.
Short of that, you're playing an obvious shell game.
Re: (Score:2)
It is true (Score:3, Interesting)
Refineries are not closing. In fact refineries are increasing capacity as we speak.
Now THAT ladies and gentlemen, is the mark of the expert liar! They place a bald-faced lie quickly followed by a true statement to deflect attention.
In fact it is very TRUE that a number of refineries have been closed. You go find the number of U.S. refineries in 2010 and compare it to 2013...
Now it is also TRUE that refineries are increasing capacity, which is kind of a DUH point since closing refineries shift more load o
Re:Why is a pipeline needed? (Score:5, Insightful)
So tell you what, you pre-approve a refinery near the Canadian border and we'll stop pushing for the entirely sensible pipeline.
Short of that, you're playing an obvious shell game.
Either you misunderstand the situation or you're the one playing games.
The point of the pipeline is not to get oil to the refineries, it's to get oil to refineries near a port that can ship to China.
It's not a secret, but I'm surprised at how many people seem ignorant of this fact.
I am agaisn't this (Score:3, Interesting)
Not because of environmental liabilities or because I hate greedy oil companies.
But because it is a ploy to export our oil to where they can get 300% more profits than in the US.
Oddly, this gem of unregulating oil exports is also hotly contested [time.com] political item which is mysteriously being debated at the exact same time as this. Now why is that?
Easy the pipleline is a way to triple our gas prices or at least move them closer to $7.00 a gallon as petro companies can sell it to China for $9.00 a gallon instead of selling it to Canadians and Americans for $3.50 a gallon. Right now we just do not have the capacity to move oil in one big central location to the scale that the oil pipeline does.
With the pipleline and the oil company's lobbyists for unregulated crude exporting we are screwed. Add to that the fact that most westerns live on the east or west coast while our food is produced in the middle in Mexico, USA, and Canada and we now have hyperinflation overnight as the price of milk, eggs, and even your starbucks coffee doubles!
So what if it is exported, that's cash for us (Score:3)
Seems to me that you should sell domestically produced items wherever it makes the most profit, as a general rule. (Yes, there are exceptions.)
Just make sure that it isn't just a few fat cats, but Canada and the US's general populace, who wins out on the higher revenues.
--PM
Re: (Score:2)
I take it you're Canadian? Because the oil in question is coming from Canada, not the USA.
Note that if Canada really wanted to export their oil overseas, they would have just built a pipeline to one of the Canadian ports.
Re: (Score:2)
Note that if Canada really wanted to export their oil overseas, they would have just built a pipeline to one of the Canadian ports.
They will [ens-newswire.com].
Northern Gateway (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Have the numbers on this?
The executives would not be so willing to make this only under the deal that oil exports are lifted? I do not know what the tax is in China but it is alot more money there
Re: (Score:2)
the Canadian subsidiaries of US and international oil companies that are making that oil in Alberta want to export it internationally because their only market for it now is the central US, and that area has a relative glut of supply. Great for the consumer-level of the game.
Unless you're a consumer outside the central US....
False premisis (Score:5, Insightful)
Many people seem to be under the delusion that if we don't allow the pipeline into the US that the oil wont be extracted. It is Canada's right to extract the oil and sell it to the market - and they will. By removing the pipeline to the US from the table all you are doing is forcing the market to adapt. The market can and will adapt by either using trucks to haul the oil (much higher risk of a spill) or by selling their product elsewhere.
You lose the advantage of having the environmental impact of a single pipeline that is easy to monitor and the safest relative way to transport oil. Your instead replacing it with shipping through another pipeline to a port where it will be placed on ships and sent overseas. The most likely place to ship it to is China and you can rest assured they won't be worrying about environmental impact reports.
Now the same amount of oil is being used and it has a higher impact on the environment during shipment and afterwards. Meanwhile the US will be importing oil from overseas to meet demand, again adding shipping risks and emissions. This is plainly worse for the environment and the net result is pretty much the opposite of people are trying to achieve.
Re: (Score:2)
I like how you and Billy Gates above came to completely opposite conclusions. Can the two of you fight it out and let us know who won?
One or both of you is obviously hiding something, so out with it.
Re: (Score:3)
Bill Gates. As in "Bill Gates, Warren Buffett's friend". As in "Warren Buffett, guy who owns the Burlington-Northern Railroad". Note this part:
"Energy companies are already moving the oil out of Canada by rail."
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/... [bloomberg.com]
When the pipeline was initially turned down Buffett's net worth went up by over $100M in a day due to the railroad. Do the math.
The oil's coming out of Canada one way or another. If we don't buy it, China will. The idea that we can stop the pipeline and that'll
Re:False premisis (Score:5, Informative)
You lose the advantage of having the environmental impact of a single pipeline that is easy to monitor and the safest relative way to transport oil. Your instead replacing it with shipping through another pipeline to a port where it will be placed on ships and sent overseas. The most likely place to ship it to is China and you can rest assured they won't be worrying about environmental impact reports.
You fundamentally misunderstand: The refined petroleum products are going to China anyways.
The only question is whether it gets shipped through the USA and put onto boats in the Gulf of Mexico,
or if Canada has to build a pipeline across their own country and ship it from their own coast.
A Senator asked the President of TransCanada (the company in charge of Keystone XL) if he would require his clients to keep all the refined products in the USA and was unequivocally told no.
http://boldnebraska.org/markey-exports [boldnebraska.org]
Previously, then-Representative Markey challenged TransCanada on this question at a hearing of the House Energy and Commerce Committee on December 2, 2011. There he asked Alexander Pourbaix, TransCanada's President of Energy and Oil Pipelines, whether he would commit to including a requirement in TransCanada's long-term contracts with Gulf Coast refineries, as a condition of shipping, that all refined fuels produced from oil transported through the Keystone XL pipeline be sold in the United States. In response, Mr. Pourbaix stated "no, I can't do that."
Even worse for the USA, Keystone will act like a giant straw to siphon out oil from the mid-west, causing their local prices to rise.
The biggest joke is that Keystone XL creates ~35 full time jobs once it is done [livescience.com]
Keystone XL is not a winner for the United States, unless you own a oil refinery.
Re: (Score:2)
Even worse for the USA, Keystone will act like a giant straw to siphon out oil from the mid-west
Boy, it sure would suck to have tons of money pouring into America from oil sales! That's why Dubai and Saudi Arabia are such a squalid, poor hellholes after all.
Oh wait.
Re:False premisis (Score:4, Insightful)
You raised the point of Economics 101 - and it turns out that the best way to benefit from the economics of this is in fact to sell the finished products to the highest bidder. The idea that 'sucking the oil out of the midwest' is harmful to the economics of the region or the country is incorrect. Cheap oil price is not the best way to benefit from this resource.
Re: (Score:2)
Many more people are under the delusion that the pipeline is not already in the USA.
It should be noted that the first two parts of the pipeline are already in place, and already pumping oil. The part that this article is talking about will provide only a better path to move the oil that's already being moved from Canada to the USA.
Re: (Score:2)
The part that is currently waiting for permits will also carry Brakken oil south.
If KXL is denied you'll see a --KXL applied for. Basically up to the middle of North Dakota and stop. No State Department approval needed.
Then just build a rail depot at the head end and shunt the oil across the border in unit trains until some bright light in Washington realizes that the dangers of rail outweigh any possible benefits from NOT building the last 100 miles or so across the border.
And yes, us Canadians will be bui
Re: (Score:2)
What will happen is this will LOWER THE COST of high sulfur oil. It also competes with some smaller oil outfits in the Mid West which don't have an oil pipeline.
Add to that the "tax free zone" in Texas and it means that only a few rich guys profit, the world uses more high sulfur oil and smaller companies go bankrupt -- net result more pollution, fewer jobs, and less taxes assessed. So as far as lame-ass corporate antics masquerading as something humanity should care about -- not the worst.
But there's ZERO
Re: (Score:2)
Canada would have as much if not more problems getting oil export terminals set up in Vancouver BC or their east coast ports.
Oh don't worry, that fight has already been ongoing for almost a decade [wikipedia.org]. We should find out this year weather or not it's being greenlit.
Well, not exactly that. (Score:2)
After five years and five environmental reviews, time and time again the Department of State analysis has shown that the pipeline is safe for the environment.
Actually, this report says providing a pipeline for the oil, so that oil can be processed and used, won't increase CO2 because the oil is going to be utilized anyway, through other means, if not via the pipeline. (Meaning, stopping the pipeline doesn't stop the oil.)
I believe some of what environmentalists are also concerned about is leaks and spills from the pipeline along the way. Though, given the number of incidents using train tank-cars, I can't imagine the pipeline being worst. I imagine, ultimatel
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, this report says providing a pipeline for the oil, so that oil can be processed and used, won't increase CO2 because the oil is going to be utilized anyway, through other means, if not via the pipeline. (Meaning, stopping the pipeline doesn't stop the oil.)
Right. That should be what the debate is about, anyway. But OP and the NYT article linked to in OP do imply that it is carbon itself that we should worry about.
I believe some of what environmentalists are also concerned about is leaks and spills from the pipeline along the way. Though, given the number of incidents using train tank-cars, I can't imagine the pipeline being worst. I imagine, ultimately, it would be better than shipping by train/truck.
I agree, and I hope that is so. My main concerns here are: (A) is China going to open-air burn that oil with few environmental controls [which is part of the pollution debate, or should be], and (B) are the owners and operators of the pipeline going to be held responsible for ALL the costs, and ALL the problems, as they should be?
Re: (Score:2)
So. Clever and smart - maybe more than I am. Single? :-)
kind of a weird choice of agency (Score:3)
I get that the State Department is involved because the proposed pipeline is transnational, and therefore impacts foreign policy, but does the State Department really have in-house expertise on environmental affairs? Afaik they are mostly diplomats, geopolitics experts, security experts, etc., while the environmental expertise is mostly in the EPA, and a few other departments like Interior.
Re:kind of a weird choice of agency (Score:4, Insightful)
Not knowing a single damn thing about what they're doing has never stopped a politician before.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, well, they weren't the most qualified, per se, they just won the bid because they were the least expensive reporting agency on the bid to "produce study that concludes zero impact from Keystone and Tar Sands."
If the oil companies wanted a study that said Tar Sands whiten teeth, that of course would have cost a lot more and there's no telling that the State Department could be plausibly qualified for that either.
Pipeline won't blow up small Quebec towns (Score:3)
State dept. making climate change conclusions? (Score:2)
"after a State Department report played down the impact it would have on climate change"
I want to see the Pipeline approved, but I don't see what the State Dept. is doing making conclusions about the climate. Are they supposed to have their own scientists studying the climate?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
From an economic standpoint it's basically a pipe from Canada to China.
Seems like it. And from that perspective, my biggest concern is: who will pay for it?
Is it being built entirely with money from the special interests involved? (Should be yes.)
Will it have minimal environmental impact under normal conditions? (Should be yes.)
Will the owners be responsible if ANYTHING goes wrong? (Should be yes.)
Etc. If any of those answers are "no", then it should not be built. But don't trust Obama to decide bases on those criteria.