Obama to block Keystone Pipeline

Talking Points:

Benefits of Keystone XL Are Certain

TransCanada believes Keystone XL will ultimately be approved, as it is too important to the U.S. economy and its national interest. As well, Keystone XL remains the best option for producers to supply crude oil to U.S. Gulf Coast Refineries.
The U.S. consumes 15 million barrels of oil each day and imports 10 to 11 million barrels per day. Industry forecasts predict oil consumption will continue at these levels for the next two to three decades, so a secure supply of crude oil is critical to U.S. energy security.
Keystone XL is shovel-ready. TransCanada is poised to put 13,000 Americans to work to construct the pipeline - pipefitters, welders, mechanics, electricians, heavy equipment operators, among other jobs - in addition to 7,000 manufacturing jobs that would be created across the U.S. Additionally, local businesses along the pipeline route will benefit from the 118,000 spin-off jobs Keystone XL will create through increased business for local goods and service providers.
TransCanada looks forward to concluding the U.S. regulatory review process and beginning the important work of building Keystone XL. The safe and reliable operation of our pipelines and infrastructure has been TransCanada's priority for 60 years. This same commitment will drive us forward in the years ahead.
Click to expand...

Nowhere in that corporate drivel does it mention the US making money off of exporting this oil, even though that's exactly what's going to happen. The clear implication of the above paragraph is that supporters of this retarded crap think we're going to be saving money by having it. It's simply not the case. They're intending on exporting it, which is not in our best interest. If they want to export it, run a pipe to Vancouver and eliminate this monstrosity from our land. At least be honest about it.
 
Krugman made an interesting point in the politics of the economics behind Keystone project and Federal Stimulus.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/19/says-law-for-thee-but-not-for-me/

Essentially the political arguments against government stimulus is that if government spends money it's not creating additional jobs because of the resulting "crowding out" of investment. Yet the same politicians claim that this project would create new jobs, without mentioning any "crowding out".
 
pgwenthold said:
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?
Click to expand...
An attempt perhaps. Create them? No.

Next question.
 
NoahFence said:
Incorrect - as I said, my wife works for a waste remediation company.
Click to expand...
I must have overlooked those pipeline spills in the US & Gulf of Mexico. So, no, I'm not incorrect. Nor were those problems unreported.
 
So if it wasn't Macando, or a major fire related to a gas pipeline break, it's unreported? Mmmmkay.

Still looking for verified acquifer damage related to a pipeline break.
 
AlBell said:
So if it wasn't Macando, or a major fire related to a gas pipeline break, it's unreported? Mmmmkay.

Still looking for verified acquifer damage related to a pipeline break.
Click to expand...

Who said these unreported pipeline breaks were specific to acquifers? I certainly didn't. I didn't even imply it.

I could have sworn those goalposts were right here last I knew!

And YES - if it's not a major spill, it's unreported.
 
AlBell said:
Still looking for verified acquifer damage related to a pipeline break.
Click to expand...

So far, there has been none because nobody has been permitted to build a pipeline full of toxic, corrosive sludge over a major aquifer.

SO FAR.
 
Many train wrecks or truck wrecks spill enough oil to become a reportable remediation issue, but you often don't hear about this even if you hear about the wreck itself. This does not mean that the paperwork wasn't filed.
 
NoahFence said:
They're intending on exporting it, which is not in our best interest. If they want to export it, run a pipe to Vancouver and eliminate this monstrosity from our land. At least be honest about it.
Click to expand...

There isn’t enough demand in Western Canada to use this oil locally, it had to be transported someplace. Enbridge has another pipeline planned that will take oil to the BC coast where it will be shipped by tanker to Asia and California.

In all likelihood both pipelines will happen, but IMO the Enbridge pipeline is more likely to be an environmental concern because the company itself is less reliable (IMO) and because if you have a spill from a super tanker it’s much more difficult to contain the scope of the disaster.
 
There isn’t enough demand in Western Canada to use this oil locally, it had to be transported someplace.
Click to expand...

I'm just using Vancouver as a Western Port for the shipment to China and other overseas markets. Having it cut the middle of the US so they can export it to China and other countries seems a bit silly to me.
 
BenBurch said:
What? 1000 bbl of oil dumped in the Yellowstone River doesn't do it for you?

July 1st, 2011.

Look it up.
Click to expand...

I don't know? Was there lasting damage to the environment or was it pretty much cleaned up. Exxon did just pay 1.3 million. Seems to be a pretty small fee if there was significant damage.
In reality I don't know much (I am sure the same as most poster here) about what kind of damage this can do.
 
eeyore1954 said:
I don't know? Was there lasting damage to the environment or was it pretty much cleaned up. Exxon did just pay 1.3 million. Seems to be a pretty small fee if there was significant damage.
In reality I don't know much (I am sure the same as most poster here) about what kind of damage this can do.
Click to expand...
We will have to wait a couple of years to know the full extent of environmental damage. Some fish stocks may be extinct for miles down-stream.

"Cleaned-up," when you are talking about oil, is kind of subjective.
 
eeyore1954 said:
I don't know? Was there lasting damage to the environment or was it pretty much cleaned up. Exxon did just pay 1.3 million. Seems to be a pretty small fee if there was significant damage.
In reality I don't know much (I am sure the same as most poster here) about what kind of damage this can do.
Click to expand...

Oil is pretty bad in a river. In a fast flowing river can almost never be fully recovered with booms. In this case the response was very slow, and the spill extended over a hundred miles.

BTW, Exxon revised upwards the volume estimate recently by 50%.

Less than 1% of the spill was recovered.

It caused the midnight evacuation of Laurel, MT.

Remediation was still in progress as of Dec 29th, 6 months after the spill.
 
NoahFence said:
I'm just using Vancouver as a Western Port for the shipment to China and other overseas markets. Having it cut the middle of the US so they can export it to China and other countries seems a bit silly to me.
Click to expand...

Pipelines are more efficient then tankers, so overall it’s still cheaper to ship it by pipeline to the gulf coast than it is to ship it to the BC coast and then to Asia. (Which also implies that gulf coast refineries are getting their oil shipped in by super tanker from someplace else.)

Oil shipped to the US gulf coast is not going to be shipped anyplace else since refineries there are already having trouble getting enough raw crude. Oil at the gulf coast is worth more (nearly $10 a barrel IIRC) than oil in the mid-west, that’s why people want to ship it there.
 
NoahFence said:
I'm guessing that's supposed to be irrelevant. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
There are a number of existing pipelines crossing Nebraska some in the fabled Sand Foothills (Ogallah acquifer). http://www.keystonexlnebraska.com/t...er/ogallala-aquifer-and-existing-pipeline-map

Also http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/01/20/keystone_madness__112829.html

President Obama's rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico is an act of national insanity. It isn't often that a president makes a decision that has no redeeming virtues and -- beyond the symbolism -- won't even advance the goals of the groups that demanded it. All it tells us is that Obama is so obsessed with his re-election that, through some sort of political calculus, he believes that placating his environmental supporters will improve his chances.

Aside from the political and public relations victory, environmentalists won't get much. Stopping the pipeline won't halt the development of tar sands, to which the Canadian government is committed; therefore, there will be little effect on global warming emissions. Indeed, Obama's decision might add to them. If Canada builds a pipeline from Alberta to the Pacific for export to Asia, moving all that oil across the ocean by tanker will create extra emissions. There will also be the risk of added spills.
...
Click to expand...

Edited by LashL: 
Snipped for compliance with Rule 4. Please, do not copy and paste lengthy tracts of text (or substantially the entire article) from elsewhere. Instead, just use a short quote and cite the link to the source.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom