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.'"

7 of 301 comments (clear)

  1. Well, Heck... No Wonder! by Jane+Q.+Public · · 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.

    1. Re:Well, Heck... No Wonder! by artor3 · · Score: 4, 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.

  2. Horse... barndoor... by Omega+Hacker · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!
    1. Re:Horse... barndoor... by phantomfive · · Score: 4, 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.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  3. False premisis by onyxruby · · Score: 4, 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.

    1. Re:False premisis by TubeSteak · · Score: 4, 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

      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
      Keystone XL is not a winner for the United States, unless you own a oil refinery.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
  4. Re:Why is a pipeline needed? by TubeSteak · · Score: 4, 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.

    --
    [Fuck Beta]
    o0t!