Slashdot Mirror
Environmental Report Raises Pressure On Obama To Approve Keystone Pipeline
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.'"
"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.
While I generaly loathe our excessive use of fossil fuels, this is a case where the "market" is well in the lead of regulators. 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. This pipeline simply reduces the overall environmental impact and increases the safety (Casselton, North Dakota anyone?) of moving what is already being produced.
GStreamer - The only way to stream!
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? It would be cheaper, require less resources, and environmentally safer.
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 coffee has just doubled.
http://saveie6.com/
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 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!
http://saveie6.com/
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.
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.
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, ultimately, it would be better than shipping by train/truck.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
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.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
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
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
I think dealing with a pipeline spill will be far easier than rebuilding small Quebec towns blown up by trainloads of it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...
its opening a cheaper route to expand a grossly damaging oil deposit. its expensive to separate the oil from the sand and water etc, using huge amounts of energy. suncor actually applied to build a nuclear plant because the energy needs are so huge. i dont know how that worked out, but nuclear would be a good option.
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), difficult to get crews to the site. It's incredibly likely damage from such a leak will do massive damage that can't ever be cleaned up.
My
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 course entitled to your opinion but don't expect people to accept to remain quiet when it violently disagrees with rigorous scientific enquiry. Same thing when you redefine the word "pollution" without actually stating what the new definition is. That particular debating method is known as the "Humpty Dumpty defence" and is considered disingenuous and childish by intellectually honest adults.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
"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?
Actually, we should just start producing more synthetic diamond and prevent the DeBeers monopoly from pretending that shitty 'natural' diamonds are for some reason superior.
And also educate people to get a fucking clue: diamonds are a stupid gesture; the tradition of a 'diamond engagement ring' was fabricated by the Diamond cartels. It's as much a 'cultural tradition' as Black Friday.
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.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
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.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
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 onto the open ones to meet demand. But the maximum potential has been reduced, because refineries have been closing.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Even if you ignore the substantial benefit of U.S. workers building a pipeline, there's of course the payments made to people owning the property the pipeline runs over.
I'm also not sure why an economically stronger nation right next to the U.S. puts your panties in such a wad either. What's good for North America is plenty good for the U.S.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
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 simply trying to force their values on others. I hate that shit - call it a religion or not, it's the same sort of BS as forcing a "gay marriage is evil" value on others.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
"Note that if Canada really wanted to export their oil overseas, they would have just built a pipeline to one of the Canadian ports." The Northern Gateway pipeline would enable us to do that, but it is under immense opposition as well by native and environmental groups as well. It would take oil from Alberta to the port terminal in Kitimat, BC. Funny thing is that oil is already being shipped overseas from Kitimat from oil being supplied by rail or other pipelines. These groups only pay lip service to environmental concerns: it's all about money. They could care less if another Lac Megantic disaster happens (unless it happened on a native reserve), they will have us ship oil by rail and oppose any pipeline until they get paid off in perpetuity. These groups are literally trying to keep Alberta's oil industry hostage. The Keystone XL crosses into the states, hence you guys tend to hear more about it in the news.
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!
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
I'd rather have a pipeline moving crude, with state of the art shutoffs and sensors (also with mitigating surrounding engineering) than a TRAIN hauling this toxic oil anywhere.
Where are environmentalist's heads on this? Why is everything have to be zero-sum with them?
---Up Up Down Down Left Right Left Right B A START
On Obama to do something he doesn't like? Get real.
Regardless of ones views on his piss-poor performance as a president, and his ongoing anti-American agenda, he is a lame duck president, so he really cant be pressured into anything.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Not picking sides, but there is an awful lot of bullshit in this thread--from both sides of the table.
On another note, anyone notice that almost all of the many train derailments that have occurred since the first Snowden leak have happened directly on top of rail switches?
Yeah, over forty people could be killed and half of downtown destroyed! Oh wait, that wasn't a pipeline.
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 (while it was a gasoline truck, I can't imagine the effect of oil being much better).
wow. So many things wrong here. You totally miss facts and economics. No wonder why you hard core liberals are such heavy polluters on this planet, and why YOUR actions will lead for things to be worse.
So, first off, keystone has multiple parts. In the middle, it stops at cushing, ok, where they have 4 refineries (2 large and 1 medium). Then they have the southern portion which flows to port arthur (started jan 21, 2014) in which it flows to 3 different refineries, including America's largest refinery, another large one, and another medium size one. In addition, it is to flow to houston where it will merge with multiple refineries there as well (you can google for those; I am not going to do all of your work to check facts).
Now, when keystone flows, will it in fact raise oil prices to America? Yup. $10/bl. That will mean that gas/diesel prices WILL GO UP. That will discourage ppl from buying low mpg cars. However, if you liberals make no changes, then all that will happen is that oil demand will slow, but will not reverse.
So, is there a good solution out of this? Absolutely. As I said, tax the oil that flows through the pipeline by $1/bl which is 1%, so not much. Then apply that to NEW electric and nat. gas vehicles. By getting Americans to switch off oil using vehicles, that will drop America's demand for oil. Considering that we are the second largest user of oil (china is now #1), it will mean that prices WILL DROP on oil. The faster that we get electric and nat. gas vehicles going here, the faster that our oil demand will drop. And if done right, within 5 years, America could see the first time that our oil usage DROPS. When that occurs, oil prices will PLUMMET.
Sadly, you liberals are just about as worthless as neo-cons and tea* on science, facts, and economic understanding. That is why USA is in such a world of hurt. Heck, the neo-cons and tea* have such a low understanding of science that they claim that climate change is not occurring, or that evolution did not occur.
BUT, you liberals scream about nuke power, you scream about fracking, yet science is showing that you are full of it, and now the environmental study shows that the pipeline is much safer and saner than trains (totally makes sense), yet you liberals act like it you can stop it.
I am not a fan of the tarsands. Yet, I fully understand why we need it. I also know that Limeys regularly blast Americans for lack of strategic thinking, and far too much tactical thinking. I now realize that they are 100% correct. We did not use to be that way, but liberals like you, and the far right wing idiots, are just short-term thinkers that only think of their own agenda and nothing else. Worse, if somebody does not see it your way, than they are the ones that are wrong.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
In the SOTU address POTUS made a lot of noise about KeystoneXL, but I think that was just a distraction for the very quite comment about increased "safe" natural gas wells, which to my cynical ear sounded like liberal double-speak for "frack Baby frack"! We shouldn't forget that Obama helped push through the permits through the EPA that lead to the Macondo blowout in the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Wat? Last time I checked, Nebraska didn't have a rain forest. Aside from the climate alarmists worried about emissions, the real environmental concern that people in the Midwest have about the pipeline is that it will be laid directly over the Ogalalla aquifer which provides fresh drinking water and irrigation for a large portion of the country. As well, there is little to no direct or indirect economic benefit to the states through which the pipeline will flow - and as many others have mentioned here, will likely result in the increased price of domestic oil.
While it's debatable how far reaching the effects of multiple nearly guaranteed leaks and spills will have on the aquifer over the years, local communities will have to deal with wells and irrigation contaminated by such leaks and spills, and as we've seen with BP, getting the companies involved to provide recompense is no easy matter.
pipeline is safe for the environment
If oil lobbyist money was spent in research, perhaps we would already have an environment-friendly oil alternative deployed.
...reason. Deny the damn thing because it's only being built to export gasoline from southern states to China, not help get the US get off foreign oil: http://thinkprogress.org/clima...
Have gnu, will travel.
"You lords and masters the corporation"
Yup that's about all I needed to read.
Easier to ship to China? From the Gulf? It would be easier to ship to China from Vancouver or whatever.
The enviro scare mongers say some crazy shit. You're on the right side of the issue, but apparently haven't researched enough to know WHY the scare mongers are wrong. Saying stuff like that, without doing any research first, makes our side look bad. You're like Sara Palin - you may be on the right side of the issue, but you make your side look silly by talking without knowing what you're talking about.
does that mean Health and Human Services knows best how to conduct a war in Iraq?
The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
You've got it backwards. The oil companies didn't ask State for this study. They thought the other four studies were enough. Arguably, under law the it should have been approved after the first two.
After four impact studies found it would be neutral or a net positive, Obama had State do a study, hoping SOMEONE would say it was bad. Someone at state had enough integrity to tell the truth rather than give Obama what he asked them for.
The Keystone XL pipeline will be carrying nasty chemicals over a distance of some 2000 miles. It will be crossing areas of pristine wilderness, wetlands, countless rivers and streams and freshwater aquifers that serve as drinking water supplies.
Look at the recent episode in West Virginia. There is no possible way for the Keystone XL operators to guarantee that there will be 0 leaks, especially as the thing ages. What if 100,000 barrels of tar-sands crap spills into a body of water? Is there any amount of money that could compensate for the potential damages?
Global warming is BS, but there are plenty of good reasons NOT to build the pipeline.
I figured that Obama would cave in during his second term. Notice that he didn't have the guts to make a firm decision before the election.
I used to live near a fuel oil tank farm on the St. Lawerence that was sold for developement and I can catagoricaly say they do clean up a tanker's worth and far less. A company came in and scraped off the top meter of soil and ran it through an on-site incinerator, tested the subsoil for contamination, replaced the incinerated dirt on the site and placed topsoil on top of everything. Regulations on such matters are very strict.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
and not a single comment opposing the pipeline for environmental reasons.
Slashdot is so liberal you guys!