Slashdot Mirror
Obama Rejects Keystone XL Pipeline (washingtonpost.com)
An anonymous reader writes: The Keystone XL pipeline controversy is finally coming to a close. On Friday, President Obama denied a construction permit for the pipeline, ending a seven-year political fight. Obama said, "America's now a global leader when it comes to taking serious action to fight climate change. And frankly, approving this project would have undercut that global leadership. And that's the biggest risk we face — not acting." Secretary of State John Kerry added, "The reality is that this decision could not be made solely on the numbers — jobs that would be created, dirty fuel that would be transported here, or carbon pollution that would ultimately be unleashed. The United States cannot ask other nations to make tough choices to address climate change if we are unwilling to make them ourselves." The decision comes as no surprise to the oil industry, and they've been busily working on other ways to transport the oil. "U.S. imports of oil from Canada hit a record high of 3.4 million barrels a day in August, up from just under 2 million barrels a day in 2008, the year the pipeline was proposed."
It's not about reality, it's about perception. It doesn't matter which pollutes more only which is perceived to be worse.
You do know the keystone pipeline would raise the cost of oil and lessen the supply to the industries you quote right?
What the lobbyists who produce this information and fancy commercials and radio talk shows don't tell you is where this oil is going?
It is not going to you. It is going to cars in China who are used to paying $9 a gallon for gas. If all of North America's gas could be sold for %300 why would they sell it to you, or fertilizer, plastic, electrical, or medical companies? Unless you want to pay $7 a gallon for gas of course.
This is why Obama vetoed it. We have all the liability of a potential accident with less product.
http://saveie6.com/
Who benefits most from the pipeline? TransCanada. All the pipeline does is make is easier and cheaper to ship oil from the tar sands. There will be some jobs to build the pipeline but after that only a handful to maintain it. The problem is the US will spends billions to build it. Will it increase refinery capacity? No. Will it make it easier to extract oil from the tar sands? No. Do US refineries benefit from getting more oil? No as most of the oil will be simply shipped out of the Gulf of Mexico to Europe. So the only purpose of the pipeline was so that TransCanada saves money on shipping at the expense of the US.
Then there is the possible environmental problems. Pipelines leak. If there is an incident with a train or truck, the impact is much less than a pipeline spilling millions of gallons of oil somewhere in the US when it is used.
Then there is the economic aspect of extracting oil from the tar sands. At the current gas prices, it's not economical to get oil from the tar sands. So when gas prices are low, the pipeline won't even be used. So the US is paying for a half-used pipeline.
So the US pays a lot of money so that TransCanada saves money on shipping. When it is in use, there is a greater chance of environmental impact. When it is not being used, the US paid a lot of money so TransCanada didn't save money. There was no real economic advantage to it at all.
If TransCanada wants to build the pipeline with 100% of their own money, they can do it. Don't do it with US taxpayer money.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
The Koch bros must be mighty pissed off right about now.
Maybe it'll pop your bubble, but they're probably delighted, given that they have big investments in the rail transport system that's profiting hugely from transporting oil. As someone once said, "If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine."
I would rather we spent the money on useful construction jobs, like repairing our failing bridges (http://blogs.wsj.com/experts/2015/06/04/how-a-decaying-infrastructure-hurts-u-s-manufacturing/).
No, I don't trust in god. He'll have to pay up front, like everybody else.
Which means...you run longer trains and more of them. And let's see, if each tank car has a 10^-whatever chance of derailing per mile traveled, what happens when there's more cars, more trains, and more wear on the tracks. Does the chance of derailment get bigger or smaller. This is not a trick question.
Buffett runs the trains and has a share in the oil.
This hurts him not at all. Do you think that the oil *isn't* going to be brought up because of the failure of the pipeline?
I don't know if Keystone was good or bad for the US in general, but the only thing that's a real threat to the oil sands exploitation is low priced Saudi oil. It's still profitable to truck and ship that oil because it is oil and everyone needs it.
I think there is some sort of odd belief that the oil has been "stopped". You can't stop oil production without a better alternative. If anyone thought this was a "win" for alternative fuels, they are mistaken. The only people who may have benefited are the people who don't lose their land and who could, in theory, have to deal with the aquifer if there was a spill. You don't stop oil production by trying to stop transport of oil already drilled. Too many people need it and will ensure it gets where it needs to go.
Frankly, I think it would have been a marginal win for the environmentalists to let the pipeline go in. Trucks and trains are a definite pollution and carbon issue, whereas a spill is a theoretical risk while the oil would have been transported without the waste of the trucks and trains. I think this is NIMBY "environmentalism" at work.
If TransCanada wants to build the pipeline with 100% of their own money, they can do it. Don't do it with US taxpayer money.
What on earth gave you the idea US taxpayer money was being used to build this pipeline, and not TC's capital? Wow, guess I haven't read the craziest of the anti-KXL propaganda...