Tar Sands pipeline
 

Should the United States give permission for Transcanada to build it's Keystone XL tar sands pipeline from Canada to Texas?

Abso-f**king-lutely.

Yes but with that idiot in office it's not going to happen.

Obama could simply require US workers be used to dig and maintain the pipeline and use the new badly needed 'jobs' excuse to get the enviro whackos off his case. The refineries in Texas will also need to expand and hire and that would be for as long as the canucks pump oil. The best part is they and not the US taxpayer pays for it. Maybe we too can lay a pipeline on top since the hole will be dug anyway and start harvesting our own oil in N.Dakota.

As a side benefit we fight terrorism by starving the terrorist countries of US and Canadian oil dollars.

In addition to labor, he can require that all materials used to build the pipeline are domestic. It is nothing new to the construction industry, but he can take credit it for it as his idea.

So basically he has all his talking points for his speech on the 8th.

"We will build the pipline to reduce reliance on foriegn oil (clapping). This will produce jobs that will help the economy (Clapping). Thank you and have a good evening."

jms. dont forget to squeeze 'its going to take time' in there somewhere. i think its a requirement that obama say that phrase each time he is in front of a mic.

OMG - anybody have a copy of Obama Buzzword Bingo? We'll need it.

"Worst Economy since the Great Depression"
"It won't happen overnight"
"Americans are resilient people"

"Let me be Clear"
"Make No Mistake"
"Health care"
"Working families"
"I inherited this"
"The previous administration"

"I shall not seek, and I will not accept, the nomination of my party for another term as your president"

So ... Canada will not approve or build this pipeline to either of their coasts (they are not idiots). But we should.

There have already been 11 oils spills with this field. Spills are virtually guaranteed due to type of corrosive crude being sent through pipeline.

TransCanada has already repeatedly lied to Nebraskans regarding taking their property (telling them they already had permits to build, that the neighbors had already sold out, offering too little for land, etc)

Many Republicans oppose this project (it cuts through only red states)

This will raise oil prices in the US midwest (by removing the current overabundance locally that suppresses prices)

Ogallalala. That would be the end of the US as the "bread basket" of the world on the great plains.

The climate damage and forest damage will be irreversible.

This is why our country is in the handbasket, wondering why we are getting warmer every day.

The fear is that it readily will.

:zz:

Drill Baby Drill

Everyone knows the ND-SD-NE-KS-OK-TX corridor is America's forest. Well maybe not? :wf

Farmers/ranchers, by large, are VERY protective of their land. I'd listen to them.

i looked up the subject, the wash post article i read said the state dept study claims this would have a minimal impact on the environment. seems to me that this is probably a done deal.

No, they are talking about the Canadian forests they are destroying. The oil sands are in Canada. Canada won't let them build a pipeline to get to west or east coasts. So the private company wants us to allow them to build a pipeline through the US.

Alot of them are saying no way.

Let's hope not. That "environmental impact" is only for the pipeline running underground through the US - with zero reference to any possible leakage through the aquafier.

And the "it will help our US oil needs" is false. Read this:

The top NASA climate scientist got arrested at the protests over this, explains the environmental impact on climate change, the Canadian boreal forests and the US major Ogallala aquafier in the midwest:

http://solveclimatenews.com/news/201...en-white-house

i did some reading on the alaska pipeline, as i figured that would be a valid comparison..based on what i read, the concerns voiced, the steps taken before and during building, the lack of negative environmental impact, and the fact that the pipeline has proved to be the best way to move all that petroleum, i see no reason to reject the building of this proposed project. according to the post article i read, canada will be extracting the oil regardless of mode of transport. a pipeline would be a better way to move that product than any alternative form of transport. state dept has already done its study, i think we should do it.

What's wrong with laying some pipe?

It's not. It's a completely different type of oil being discussed here. Far more corrosive to the pipe, different to get out of the ground (far more destructive to the environment), far higher carbon costs, different refining, etc.

That's kind of the whole point - that this is something entirely different than normal.

The "negative environmental impact" statement is only about "what is the environmental impact of digging a hole and putting pipe into it" - not about transporting the tar sand oil, etc.

It's not Canada, it's a private company. Canada has already denied them building a pipeline to their west or east coast. The only way the project continues is for the US to give the private company a pipeline. If the US says no, the project is shut down.

yes, i know its a different form of crude and a different process. what that has to do with the pipeline i dont know. i said its a good comparison because much like trans alaska, they have to ensure a good mode of transport with minimal environmental impact. and of course a puipeline has far less impact than a ton of truck or rail traffic. and did you really want to rebuke me for using 'canada' when you did the same??? how silly. yes, it is a company doing the extracting, in canada.

I posted some links: tar sand oil is extremely corrosive and the likelihood of regular oil pipeline as they are trying to install not failing under this type of oil being put into it is small to non-existent. This is a new experiment, and too many say it is doomed to fail.

This is an extremely important concern with this pipeline. This is one of the reasons Canada will not allow them to install a pipeline in Canada.

I used TransCanada when speaking of the pipeline, and Canada when speaking of the country. Two different things. Canada has denied TransCanada permission to build a pipeline to either of their coasts, due to environmental concerns as a great part of it.

The environmental impact import here has to do with the extreme environmental cost of destroying the forests to obtain the tar sand oil, the extremely high polluting cost of both that and of refining it, and the extreme impact on climate change.

The environment cost of a gallon of this oil becoming gasoline has been likened to a Prius using gas like a Hummer. It's far more impact than regular oil.

Then, of course, the great risk of transporting it across the main water source for the middle of this country.

The protests in Washington in front of the White House regarding this, ongoing since August 20, have been the largest public protests there since the Viet Nam war, with hundreds of arrests, including the highest-ranking climate scientist in NASA. Yet it's received hardly any media attention.

And with the decision by the Obama administration today regarding the EPA, thousands are planning on descending upon Washington in coming days.

Anybody who thinks we have a "liberally-biased media" in this country isn't paying attention.

Obviously people will make their own decisions about this pipeline. But it's not a usual oil pipeline as has been done before, nor is it usual oil process to obtain the oil. It's interesting that both Libertarians and Liberals are joining together to oppose this, including the Republican Governor of Nebraska. Here's lots of information about the environmental impact, the danger to our water supply, etc. Here, and more links at bottom of page.
http://solveclimatenews.com/news/201...aska-sandhills

the protesters mean nothing to me. if canada cleared their end, and it looks like state has cleared this end, build it.

I was looking for a picture of LA smog for the other thread, but found this. Yeah, Canada is "cleared" (which is why environmentalists up there are fighting harder than in the US to stop this expensive destruction so Canada can sell oil overseas)

Before mining for tar sand - After mining for tar sand

Makes mountaintop removal look kind to the earth.

Is there a way we could possibly stick you in this pipeline should it come to fruition?

:D:tro:

Ah 'ub 'oo, sweetie!



:{>:

i figure its cleared since i read that theyve already extracted oil. im limited right now on finding out much...but enviros wouldnt be considered such if they werent up in arms~doesnt mean theyre right.

The "up in arms" stems from four concerns:

First, this is the second-largest deposit of carbon in the world, and to extract it in toto would be "game over for climate change" according to the NASA world-reknowned climate expert guy arrested late this week (would have to look up his name again) They call it, "a carbon bomb with a 1700-mile fuse"

Secondly, the loss of all that forest diminishes the planet's capacity to counteract emissions via the forest (like when the threat was to eliminate the rain forest previously, we lost so much oxygenating capacity)

Third, the dirty, sandy oil is extremely expensive and polluting to extract out. That's where the "a gallon of this tar sand used in a Prius is the same pollution as a gallon of gas used in a Hummer" comes from.

And lastly, the oil is very thick, sandy, corrosive, yet they don't have any plans to really change the pipeline construction to prevent the anticipated increased leakage (many leaks already this project in Canada) and they are running the pipeline through the middle of the huge aquafier that provides water to the middle third of the United States. Even a small leak into that would irretrieviably harm the aquifier and leave 1/3 of our nation without water (and don't forget the west already is running out)

And: this oil that is being sent through our country and refined (more dirty than other oil products via pollution) is not going to be sold to us, it's being sold overseas.

Although our midwest oil production can use this pipeline, we are told, which will increase the oil prices in the midwest due to ceasing the constant glut there now due to lack of easy transport other than via Great Lakes (oil produced in the midwest tends to stay in the midwest)

what does who buys the oil have to do with it? and every country imports and exports. i even read that a company here makes chopsticks that china imports.
at any rate, the customer isnt important. what is important is if the product is too harmful to make it worth extracting. based on the fact they are already extracting it that answer must be no. does the fact that a nasa guy who is a foe of fossil fuels is against this bother me? no. i find us using food as fuel while people starve far more bothersome. will this pipeline create needed jobs? yes, and that is regardless of who buys.
since you believe we elect our officials to take care of us, and theyve signed off on it, i dont see how you can complain. surely they have done their due diligence, have considered environmental impacts, whether there really is a danger that is too great, or whether they feel that proper engineering and construction can handle this task.

a new article this morning on the subject, with protesters having been arrested:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44386975...-oil-pipeline/

TransCanada, a leading North American pipeline operator, started operation of Keystone I, a 36-inch pipeline system, in June 2010, making it possible to deliver Canadian oil to markets across Midwest farmland in several states, from the Dakotas through Illinois. Keystone XL will incorporate a section of that existing pipeline in its delivery through the bottom half of the US.


...i didn't know they already had a pipeline in the country, that this oil was already being moved thru part of the u.s.
Environment Minister Peter Kent told Reuters that his government “can look forward to eventual approval by the American government” and that TransCanada had “perhaps one of the best records of any pipeline operator” in North America.

Proponents of the pipeline say it will help the troubled US economy. TransCanada says the US will receive $20 billion through new job creation and local property taxes. The State Department report estimates that the pipeline will create between 5,000 and 6,000 new jobs that will generate up to $419 million in total wages. Nearly $7 billion will be added through additional costs, such as supplies and permitting.

:tro:

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/0...sands-climate/

The Canadian tar sands are substantially dirtier than conventional oil as the chart above shows (longer analysis here).

They may contain enough carbon-intensive fuel to make stabilizing atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide at non-catastrophic levels all but impossible.

The environmental impacts of tar sands development include:
irreversible effects on biodiversity and the natural environment
reduced water quality
destruction of fragile pristine Boreal Forest
destruction of associated wetlands, aquatic and watershed mismanagement
habitat fragmentation
habitat loss
disruption to life cycles of endemic wildlife particularly bird and Caribou migration
fish deformities
negative impacts on the human health in downstream communities

An overwhelming objection is that exploitation of tar sands would make it implausible to stabilize climate and avoid disastrous global climate impacts.

The tar sands are estimated (e.g., see IPCC Fourth Assessment Report) to contain at least 400 GtC (equivalent to about 200 ppm CO2). Easily available reserves of conventional oil and gas are enough to take atmospheric CO2 well above 400 ppm, which is unsafe for life on earth.

However, if emissions from coal are phased out over the next few decades and if unconventional fossil fuels including tar sands are left in the ground, it is conceivable to stabilize earth’s climate.

Phase out of emissions from coal is itself an enormous challenge. However, if the tar sands are thrown into the mix, it is essentially game over.

There is no practical way to capture the CO2 emitted while burning oil, which is used principally in vehicles.

Governments are acting as if they are oblivious to the fact that there is a limit on how much fossil fuel carbon we can put into the air. Fossil fuel carbon injected into the atmosphere will stay in surface reservoirs for millennia. We can extract a fraction of the excess CO2 via improved agricultural and forestry practices, but we cannot get back to a safe CO2 level if all coal is used without carbon capture or if unconventional fossil fuels, like tar sands are exploited.

Republican Senator joins GOP Gov to reject Keystone Pipeline
 

Sen. Mike Johanns (R-Nebraska) joined the Republican governor of his home state, Dave Heineman, in calling on President Obama to reject the proposed Keystone XL pipeline.

U.S. Sen. Mike Johanns (R-Neb.) today released the following statement in support of Nebraska Governor Dave Heineman’s request to President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to deny the proposed route for the Keystone XL pipeline:

“I support Governor Heineman’s request that President Obama and Secretary Clinton deny the current application from TransCanada to build the Keystone XL pipeline along a route crossing Nebraska’s Sand Hills and the center of the Ogallala Aquifer,” said Johanns. “The proposed route is the wrong route. It’s clear to me, after traveling throughout the state, that most Nebraskans agree a better route is needed.

“Amid much discussion about authorities, one thing is irrefutable and that is the State Department’s authority to approve or reject TransCanada’s current permit application. The Governor has now unequivocally stated that the application should be denied; I agree. TransCanada should be forced to select a more appropriate pipeline route.”

The pipeline would go through Nebraska, right over the top of the Ogalala aquifer, one of the largest and most vital groundwater deposits in the world.
----------------------
http://www.americanindependent.com/1...eline-rejected