Obama to block Keystone Pipeline

[leftysergeant]

You really think this will kill people? Better get rid of the thousands of miles of pipelines already crisscrossing the US then!

Nah. Just shut them down until the con men who inspect them learn how to actually do their jobs. Maybe a law that allows the death penalty for a corporation that kills people due to defective inspection protocols.

 

[leftysergeant]

I just want to hear him explain this. "Energy independence?"

Bzzzt. We would be a lot closer to energy independence had a senile old republicon not torpedoed all of Carter's initiatives back in 1981. We would not even be burning the Canadian sludge ourselves. It woud just be going to make a bunch of whiney babies who don't pay any taxes now that much richer. The thousands of jobs would be temporary, and would be bought at the risk that it would be impossible to drink the water from the biggest aquifer in the country. That would cost more jobs than the oil companies ever created. Spills WILL occur if it is built.

Don't mistake courage for hubris. Obama's just betting the union grandees who filled his coffers four years ago won't bail on him this November. It will be interesting.

Which puts him in sharp contrast to the republicons who, when Grover says "JUMP" ask "How high, sir?"

 

[pgwenthold]

Second, this is exactly the outcome the GOP wanted when they forced the President to stop doing studies and give a yes or no answer. President Obama warned them that if he had to skip the studies, he couldn't approve the pipeline, but they went ahead with this law anyway because this wasn't about oil at all, it wasn't about creating an issue for the election. And it succeeded.

Dick Luger's ads attacking Obama for blocking it started last night.

They were ready and waiting to use it as an issue.

I'm trying to understand, though. Luger's ad claims that he considers creating jobs the most important thing to do, but then it boasts how he opposed Obama's stimulus. Wasn't that an attempt to create jobs?

 

[lomiller]

....tremendous environmental damage in alberta.

Which isn’t the US governments concern and shouldn’t be addressed in this way.

Incomplete list; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pipeline_accidents

As long as there is consumption of oil there will be pipelines and spills. Blocking one pipeline from being built will just cause another to be built someplace else, and in all likely increase the changes of something going wrong because you will end up with a less efficient transport system and therefore more miles of pipeline to do the same job.


If you want to reduce the use of oil, the only way to do that is to reduce demand. Trying to limit supply and transport will accomplish nothing, (See the “War on Drugs”) and in all likelihood move that transport and supply to even less desirable alternatives. If there are specific issues, like the Sand Hills in Nebraska, then those can and should be addressed but trying to solve other problems is using the wrong tool for the job.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Your communist friends in China will happily buy the oil if the US doesn't. And China is far less concerned about the environment.

what does this have to do with the proposed pipeline?

 

[NoahFence]

Something you would know nothing about, then? Any pipeliner or oil field hand who knew of those incidents involving any significant quantity and did not report them would in danger of lawsuits (as would the Company) and being fired.

ETA: You linked to a list of obviously reported spills, but note the topic is pipelines in the US vis-a-vis the Ogalalah acquifer in Nebraska, not tanker spills or ship bilge-disposal problems.

Incorrect - as I said, my wife works for a waste remediation company.

 

[applecorped]

He didn't, he's putting off approving it until after the election, just like before. He'll tell his union supporters to just be patient, while he plays his extreme environmentalist supporters for fools.

Obama's going to approve it after he loses the election?

 

[leftysergeant]

Which isn’t the US governments concern and shouldn’t be addressed in this way.

Dude, we're down-stream from Alberta.

As long as there is consumption of oil there will be pipelines and spills.

Which is good reeason to keep them away from an irreplaceable resource.

Blocking one pipeline from being built will just cause another to be built someplace else, and in all likely increase the changes of something going wrong because you will end up with a less efficient transport system and therefore more miles of pipeline to do the same job.

Non sequitur.

There is a refinery in Michigan that can process the Canadian sludge. There is no excuse for shipping it across our water supply.

If you want to reduce the use of oil, the only way to do that is to reduce demand. Trying to limit supply and transport will accomplish nothing, (See the “War on Drugs”) and in all likelihood move that transport and supply to even less desirable alternatives. If there are specific issues, like the Sand Hills in Nebraska, then those can and should be addressed but trying to solve other problems is using the wrong tool for the job.

Until the oil companies can be trusted to act like adults, they should not be permitted to take chances with our drinking water. There are other ways to solve the problem, and they need to be looked at first.

 

[WildCat]

You have no idea...

There are plenty of spills that go unannounced.

Oh, there's lots of them but they're sooper-sekrit so you have no evidence?

 

[WildCat]

How about they put that pipeline through eeyore1954 and wildcat's back yards. Come on guys, step up and show how much you love America.

Chicago has lots of pipelines, natural gas mostly. One is located right in front of my house.

 

[WildCat]

I already have a major thouroughfare practically running through my back yard.

And probably more oil leaking from cars on that road than from pipelines.

Do you know why you have to seal asphalt driveways every few years but you never see then resealing an asphalt road? It's because all the oil leaking from cars does it automatically.

 

[WildCat]

Three things on this. One, didn't they already state that they planned to sell the oil outside the US anyway? So the idea that the US is going to miss out on a domestic oil supply is false.

You act like you made some sort of point. Why do you think it matters where it is sold? And isn't exporting the refined petroleum products good for the economy and the balance of trade?

 

[WildCat]

what does this have to do with the proposed pipeline?

bikerdruid thinks oil production in Alberta will come to a halt if the pipeline isn't built.

Why did I have to explain this to you? You can't follow a conversation?

 

[NoahFence]

You act like you made some sort of point. Why do you think it matters where it is sold? And isn't exporting the refined petroleum products good for the economy and the balance of trade?

The talking point's aren't "Look at the money we'll make" - it's "Look at the money we'll save" - by using this oil. Trouble is, the oil isn't meant for the US.

 

[NoahFence]

Oh, there's lots of them but they're sooper-sekrit so you have no evidence?

Roll your eyes all you want. I'm not privvy to internal memo's from my wife's company. I'm only privvy to her relaying them to me. I would think it's abundantly clear by now I'm no conspiracy theorist.

 

[BenBurch]

Oh, there's lots of them but they're sooper-sekrit so you have no evidence?

There are a lot of spills that make no press. We had a 40 gallon barrel of waste oil leak out and that required a full remediation, but it did not make the papers.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

What environmental damage? Have any of the other pipelines in the US caused significant environmental damage? Probbaly the closest I know of is the Alaska pipeline melting the permafrost directly under it, but there's no permafrost in the lower 48.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/e...-barrels-of-oil-into-yellowstone-river-51838/

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/...ther-day-another-oil-pipeline-leak/?mobile=nc (yeah, I know, Alberta. Not in the US, so it doesn't count )

http://www.nola.com/environment/index.ssf/2011/09/coast_guard_works_to_plug_oil.html

Here's a more general rundown of some oil pipeline spills in just the past year:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/10/b...safeguard-pipeline-system.html?pagewanted=all


(Google is your friend. Those were all within the first 10 links I found on a Google search for: oil pipeline leaks.)


ETA: Quote from the last link:

Federal records show that although the pipeline industry reported 25 percent fewer significant incidents from 2001 through 2010 than in the prior decade, the amount of hazardous liquids being spilled, though down, remains substantial. There are still more than 100 significant spills each year — a trend that dates back more than 20 years. And the percentage of dangerous liquids recovered by pipeline operators after a spill has dropped considerably in recent years.

Since 1990, more than 5,600 incidents were reported involving land-based hazardous liquid pipelines, releasing a total of more than 110 million gallons of mostly crude and petroleum products, according to analysis of federal data. The pipeline safety agency considered more than half — at least 100 spills each year — to be “significant,” meaning they caused a fire, serious injury or fatality or released at least 2,100 gallons, among other factors.

Pipeline operators reported recovering less than half of all hazardous liquids spilled over the last two decades, according to federal records. And the ratio is not improving: after recovering more than 60 percent of liquids spilled in 2005 and 2006, operators recovered less than a third between 2007 and 2010.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Which isn’t the US governments concern and shouldn’t be addressed in this way.

As long as there is consumption of oil there will be pipelines and spills. Blocking one pipeline from being built will just cause another to be built someplace else, and in all likely increase the changes of something going wrong because you will end up with a less efficient transport system and therefore more miles of pipeline to do the same job.


If you want to reduce the use of oil, the only way to do that is to reduce demand. Trying to limit supply and transport will accomplish nothing, (See the “War on Drugs”) and in all likelihood move that transport and supply to even less desirable alternatives. If there are specific issues, like the Sand Hills in Nebraska, then those can and should be addressed but trying to solve other problems is using the wrong tool for the job.

Why is the plan to transport the crude instead of build a refinery in the North? Is there a particular reason that a new refinery couldn't be built?

ETA: I don't disagree that removing dependance on oil in general is the proper long-term solution...but I fail to see how that means the proper short term solution should be to allow another pipeline to be built crossing the entire US instead of just building a new refinery in the north.

 

[HoverBoarder]

One for Oil
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/03/us/03oilspill.html

One for gas
http://www.upi.com/Business_News/En...-burst-triggers-landslide/UPI-78231320677516/

Pipelines burst. It's what they do. Deal with it.

Incomplete list; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pipeline_accidents

And the significant damage is...?

US only please, we don't have people punching holes in the pipelines to steal oil/gasoline like in Nigeria and other places.

Ummm, did you see the 700+ incidents that were in the US that Ben Burch linked to??

Oil pipelines burst, leak, corrode, break, shift, and are no where near perfect.


However, having said that, I am in favor of the Keystone pipeline, and hope that Obama will allow the project to move forward after the election.

When the top CEOs in Alaska get together to discuss the future of oil production there, and decide that they will definitely get more money by shipping it China, than that is just capitalism at work.

However, until we get serious about developing other viable alternatives to oil (like algae based fuels), than we will need oil, and it will just hurt us more to not have the Keystone pipeline.

 

[Tmy]

Govt Help to build a windmill and the neocons freak out.

But they have no problem helping big oil build a pipeline clear across the country.