Thread: Politics Stamps Out Oil Sands Pipeline, Yet It Seems Likely to Endure

I wanna see a list of General Contractors and Subcontractors who are supporting this project.

As always with any oil pipeline, there is opposition from "environmentalists" and those who just have a built in instinct to oppose everything connected with development. Of course these same people live off the results of previous developments great and small, but they never seem to see it that way and often forget that they were opposed to that development as well. Opposing things is a career for some people, and quite well paid in some cases.

As always there is smoke and mirrors being used by both sides to argue for and against. Obama stalls to appease the lunatic fringe on one side and the GOP lunatic fringe tried to bully him by mixing it up with another issue which is in no way connected. Typical head banging politics that result in everybody losing.

The XL pipeline is going to be built because it makes good economic sense for both Canada and the US. The oil is needed. The oil is there for the taking.
Environmenal impact has been studied to death and any outstanding concerns are minimal. (mostly imaginary) The need is increasing; not decreasing; therefor it will overcome the political posturing and nonsense eventually.

The point that all oil is subject to world price and is sold to the highest bidder really has nothing much to do with oil security. (which is a big concern for the US) Oil being piped in from a stable source through "friendly" territory under a joint venture and long term contract is very secure compared to reliance on the ME or Comrade Chavez et al. So you pay whatever you have to pay, but at least the product is available and will be delivered. That is what oil security means.

Now we have another "scientist" telling us that the world is going to suffocate if the tar sands continue to be developed.....OMG. Other scientists suggest that the increased carbon dioxide will greatly increase the rate of plant growth. The warming effect and additional CO2 will mean that the Northern boreal forests will grow much faster and land which is now useless will become arable. So you can believe whatever you like....there are theories on just about any haribrained idea you can come up with...all backed by "scientists".

Another scientific study told us that the Arctic Cariboo herds would be wiped out by a previous pipeline in the Western Arctic......but when the pipeline was built the Cariboo seem to really appreciate it. It became a favorite stopping place to warm up their feet because it was quite a few degrees warmer than the ground they had to walk on. The scientists asked everybody except the Cariboo apparently. So much for "studies" and "scientific reports" They seem to have a lot more to do with the political agenda of the scientist(s) than any real science.

Oh and of course we must not talk about corporate profits....dirty words. Let's get rid of the whole profit thing.....and we can all work for the government. We know they will always take care of us....

In the meantime while Mr Obama and his opponents continue to spar and run election campaigns...the Chinese are arriving daily in Fort McMurray frothing at the mouth at the prospects of buying into those terrible tar sands....and Stephen Harper (Canadian PM) shrugs his shoulder in Washington and says "Up to you"...we need the cash you need the oil.....this is not hard guys....huh?

^Yeah, what's wrong with risking the Ogallala Aquifer? Pussies.

Originally Posted by robuzo

^Yeah, what's wrong with risking the Ogallala Aquifer? Pussies.

The Ogallala aquifer was a hed herring, and in any case the original proposed route was modified to avoid it. Someone also pointed out that in view of the extraordinary difficulty of getting this stuff out of the ground in the first place, how the hell was it going to get back down into the ground all by itself.....

....and would you believe ten years ago "scientific studies" were suggesting that the Ogallala aquifer was running dry anyway....and there was more "scientfiic studies" looking into the viability of tapping into Lake Superior as an alternative source. In the world of academia it is necessary to "publish" or die.....so you publish.

Pipelines are the best and safest way to move oil. Accidents are always possible but I can't think of any really serious oil pipeline accidents...unlike tankers.
A pipeline can be shut off and the flow contained in farily short order, so any leaks would be localized and much easier to recover than from a tanker.

^The stuff flowing through the Keystone (which already exists, and is as leaky as your thinking) is a lot nastier than the Alaska pipeline. Also, as to "I can't think of any really serious oil pipeline accidents," while I'm not surprised that you can't, here's one (with helpful photographs for the semi-literate):
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/03/us/03oilspill.html
An ExxonMobil pipeline running under the Yellowstone River in south central Montana ruptured late Friday, spilling crude oil into the river and forcing evacuations.

I think it is a branding problem. Keystone XL sounds like a hiking boot or something.

The GOP need to rename it.

Something like "PRIDE EAGLE PATRIOT BIBLE JOBS 'N FREEDOM JUICE PIPE FOR GOD'S BLESSED AMERICA 2012!" should do the trick.

Originally Posted by spudge

I think it is a branding problem. Keystone XL sounds like a hiking boot or something.

The GOP need to rename it.

Something like "PRIDE EAGLE PATRIOT BIBLE JOBS 'N FREEDOM JUICE PIPE FOR GOD'S BLESSED AMERICA 2012!" should do the trick.

Bit long for proper advertising I think. " Freedom line...pumping for Jesus " might fit on the bill boards better......

Any spill over 25 gallons is reportable, but when you are pumping millions a day I guess you can call that a drop in the bucket. Tanker trucks and rail cars leak much more than that per day collectively. If you dont believe me, go walk down a set of tracks for a half a mile come back and then we will debate.

Originally Posted by S Landreth

Originally Posted by koman

OK you found us a leak.

Here are a few more (4,769 Hydrocarbon liquid leaks in 15 years), just in Alberta.

I am not familiar with this site or its accuracy: A History of Enbridge Oil Pipeline Spills « Sean Kheraj, Canadian History and Environment

Thank you for the nice chart... notice that a good percentage of these lines are carrying....ahem...water.......

Now if anyone wishes to take the time and trouble to read the Oil and Gas Journal they will find out that in the year 2010 alone, there were over 34,000 "leaks" from liquid carrying pipelines in North America. The average number of leaks was 7 per 1000 miles of pipeline. Trans-Canada pipelines average was 1.5 per 1000 miles so they are considerably better than the industry average, but we hear that their pipelines "leak like a sieve" from some fringe blogsite via our resident oil and gas commentator Robuzo. Pipelines tend to have a much higher frequency of "leaks" during the first couple of years in operation, after which the frequency declines substantially.
The much maligned XL line only become operational in 2009 so it's leaking like a sieve phase would have been part of that 1.5 per 1000 miles.

These things are discussed openly in the oil/gas industry, but why bother with people who actually know what they are talking about? O & G is often very critical of the industry and seems to take a special delight in pointing out deficiencies and examples of bad judgement. It also champions the industry when it deserves credit when the many good cases of judgement are apparent and provides counter balance to the hyper-ventilating ultra enviormentalist bloggers and activists who would otherwise be able to just say anytthing they like and get away with it....(and they do...frequently)

What is important is that these "leaks" are miniscule in most cases, and with very few exceptions (like the one Robuzo is so wired up over) they cause no significant damage to persons or property.

There is no safer, cleaner and efficient way to transport oil from the wellheads to the refiners.

Assuming we are of the opinion that oil is needed; as opposed to the small minority of marginal lunatics that think we can just turn it all off and hide under the covers till some miraculous new energy producting discovery is made.....then we will have to continue building and using pipelines.

Pipeline building and maintenance is highly regulated, but accidents can happen so they are built to mitigate the risks as much as humanly possible....despite the ravings and imaginings of those who believe that everyone in the business world is out to get them and destroy the planet. These things are studied in great detail before approval is given.

The XL line has been beaten to death for years and is only being held up for purely political reasons. If it is killed off in the end.(highly unlikely)....well the Chinese will be just delighted and the US will have lost yet another round in the ongoing battles.

Everyone with any sense knows and accepts that there are inherent risks but as stated previously the benefits far outweigh these risks. There are risks involved with every kind of energy production.....and with just about everything in life for that matter. We have seen a number of real disasters caused by giant oil tankers, trains derailing, planes crashing and nuclear power stations melting down.....should be stop using tankers, planes, trains and nuclear stations as well?

It' s a question of balance, common sense and the least risky option of all those that are available.

Originally Posted by koman

There are thousand of miles of pipelines across Canada and the US. Some of them have been around for many years. I know of no "leaks" that would even begin to qualify as " really serious" unless you take the position that any kind of leak is serious.

Olympic Pipe Line accident in Bellingham kills three youths on June 10, 1999. On Thursday afternoon, June 10, 1999, a 16-inch fuel line owned by the Olympic Pipe Line Company ruptures in Bellingham, spilling 277,200 gallons of gasoline into Hanna and Whatcom creeks. The volatile fuel explodes, killing three youths: Liam Wood, 18, and Wade King and Stephen Tsiorvas, both age 10. The massive fireball sends a plume of smoke 30,000 feet into the air, visible from Anacortes to Vancouver, B.C., Canada.

HistoryLink.org- the Free Online Encyclopedia of Washington State History

Calgary company SemCAMS ULC faces numerous environmental charges from a pipeline leak in 2010 that killed fish and plants after wastewater was leaked into a creek in west central Alberta.

The Aug. 7 release totalled approximately 850,000 litres of mostly saline water with some hydrocarbons from the South Kaybob natural gas processing plant near Fox Creek.

Calgary firm faces charges for 2010 pipeline leak

The Prudhoe Bay oil spill (2006 Alaskan oil spill) was an oil spill that was discovered on March 2, 2006 at a pipeline owned by BP Exploration, Alaska (BPXA) in western Prudhoe Bay, Alaska. Initial estimates said that up to 267,000 US gallons (6,400 bbl) were spilled over 1.9 acres (7,700 m2), making it the largest oil spill on Alaska's north slope to date.[1] Alaska's unified command ratified the volume of crude oil spilled as 212,252 US gallons (5,053.6 bbl) in March 2008.[2] The spill originated from a 0.25-inch (0.64 cm) hole in a 34-inch (86 cm) diameter pipeline.

Prudhoe Bay oil spill - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

BP reported yet another pipeline leak at its Alaskan oilfields, frustrating the oil giant's attempts to rebuild its reputation after the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.

BP pipeline leaks oily mixture onto Alaskan tundra | Reuters

BP shares slid nearly 2.5% this morning after closure of a major Alaskan pipeline that carries around 12% of America's oil output.

The Trans-Alaska pipeline system, which transports oil from the Prudhoe Bay field, was closed on Saturday following the discovery of a leak. The incident is expected to drive up oil prices, and could mean motorists face even higher costs at the pumps.

BP shuts Alaska pipeline after leak | Business | guardian.co.uk

I could keep posting these for days. Furthermore the water carried in the pipelines that you seemed to insinuate was harmless is in fact very toxic to the environment. Secondly the oil sands will not be any more "secure" with a pipeline going through the US because China will buy the oil whether they pick it up from BC or the bayou. By not building the pipeline China would in no way be locking up the tar sands. If relations with the Chinese decline I can assure you that Canada will line up right beside their cousins to the south and stop selling it to them. "Oil security" in this case is a non issue.

Canada revs up for fight over second tar sands oil pipeline

Canada's planned Northern Gateway pipeline would send tar sands oil to its West Coast for export to Asia. Supporters see it as a defiant stance against the U.S.

Reporting from Fort St. James, Canada— The prime minister is talking about being "held hostage" by U.S. interests. Radio ads blare, "Stand up to this foreign bully." A Twitter account tells of a "secret plan to target Canada: exposed!"

Could this be Canada? The cheerful northern neighbor: supplier of troops to unpleasant U.S.-led foreign conflicts, reliable trade partner, ally in holding terrorism back from North America's shores, not to mention the No. 1 supplier of America's oil?

Canada's recent push for the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline to carry oil from the tar sands of Alberta to the nation's West Coast, where it would be sent to China, has been marked by uncharacteristic defiance. And it first flared in the brouhaha over the bananas.

Responding to urgings from U.S. environmentalists, Ohio-based Chiquita Brands International Inc. announced in November that it would join a growing number of companies trying to avoid fuel derived from Canada's tar sands, whose production is blamed for accelerating climate change and leveling boreal forests.

Then in January, President Obama abruptly vetoed a permit for the Keystone XL pipeline, Canada's $7-billion project to deliver oil across the U.S. Midwest to the Texas Gulf Coast , which environmentalists have long opposed.

Mix in a touch of nationalism, and Prime Minister Stephen Harper's view that Canada needs to hedge its oil bets by diversifying its export markets, and the fight was on — not only with the neighbor to the south, but also among Canadians.

"Canada is not what it used to be," said Todd Paglia, executive director ForestEthics, an environmental group that has been calling for the international boycotts on tar sands oil. "It's hard to believe, but it's tilting toward becoming more of an authoritarian petro state, positioning itself as a resource colony for China."

On the other side, a lobbying group pushing Canada as an alternative to unstable and sometimes unsavory oil producers in the Middle East ramped up a boycott of its own, this one targeting Chiquita bananas.

"Stand up to this foreign bully. Don't buy Chiquita bananas," said a radio spot by the group, which calls itself EthicalOil.org, complaining about what it called Chiquita's record of supporting terrorist groups in South America. A Twitter profile was set up for @bloodbananas to expose the allegedly hypocritical campaign against Canada.

Over the last few weeks, a two-agency review panel has convened the first in a long round of hearings on Northern Gateway, pointedly described as a pipeline that won't deliver much oil to the U.S. Instead, it will allow Canada to end its sole dependence on American buyers for its most important export by opening up markets in Asia, and allow it to attract the badly needed foreign investment to develop the sands.

"I think what's happened around the Keystone is a wake-up call, the degree to which we are dependent or possibly held hostage to decisions in the United States, and especially decisions that may be made for very bad political reasons," Harper, whose government has labeled pipeline opponents as foreign-funded "radicals," told CBC television in January.

The $5.5-billion Northern Gateway project, which would carry 525,000 barrels a day of crude 731 miles from a town near Edmonton through the Rocky Mountains to a new port on the British Columbia coast, has long been in the works as a companion to Keystone XL.

But with Keystone's recent turmoil in the U.S., Northern Gateway has risen to new prominence as a defiant Plan B for a nation increasingly aggressive in combating international hurdles, whether it's greenhouse gas treaties, low-carbon fuel standards or U.S. presidential politics.

"There has always been very strong support by the Harper government, by the province of Alberta and by the oil industry for the Northern Gateway pipeline. But there's no question that for all three of those entities, that urgency increased dramatically with the apparent defeat of Keystone XL," said George Hoberg, a political scientist and professor of forestry at the University of British Columbia.

"The Harper government's view is that, especially in the Obama years, the U.S. is becoming a less reliable partner for the oil sands."

Officials at Enbridge Inc., which is proposing the western pipeline, say it has been in the works for nearly a decade, though its need has become more apparent as the economy in Asia has boomed while the American one, which until now has consumed 99% of Canadian oil exports, has slowed. By some estimates, Canada has the third-largest proven oil reserves in the world, with 175 billion barrels.

"It's an attempt to respond to the reality that the geographical location of the demand is changing," company spokesman Paul Stanway said, though he said the U.S., which imports more than 2 million barrels a day of Canadian oil, will remain the country's biggest export market. Chinese state companies have more than $16 billion invested in Canadian energy development and are helping fund Northern Gateway to ship their oil.

The Northern Gateway pipeline faces its toughest opposition in Canada. More than 4,000 people have registered to speak at hearings over the next several months — more than for any project in the nation's history.

Debate is especially intense here in British Columbia. Although some residents are eager for the tax revenue and thousands of local jobs the pipeline could bring, many who live along the corridor and in many First Nations territories, homelands of Canada's aboriginals, are mobilizing to fight it.

Crucial are the streams and tributaries of the Fraser and Skeena rivers that lie in the pipeline's path — possibly the greatest salmon rivers on Earth.

Along the coast, there are fears that piloting more than 200 oil tankers a year through the fiords of Douglas Channel and then southward could jeopardize the spectacular coastline of the famed Great Bear rain forest, full of azure waters and rocky waterfalls.

"We truly live in one of the most beautiful places on Earth. We live right at the start of the Fraser River watershed, and if we have a spill, it will devastate everything from here straight to the Pacific Ocean in Vancouver," said Bev Playfair, until recently a municipal councilor in Fort St. James, where a hearing on the pipeline this month was preceded by dozens of townspeople marching down the main street with signs such as "Say No to Enbridge."

The most formidable opposition comes from the First Nations of British Columbia, most of which, unlike those in other provinces, have never signed treaties with the federal government and thus have never relinquished title to their historic lands.

"We have the ability to go to court in Canada and say, 'What you are proposing violates the Constitution of Canada.' And that's the trump card in all of this," said Art Sterritt, director of the Coastal First Nations' Great Bear Initiative.

On the Saik'uz Reserve, near the town of Vanderhoof, schoolchildren spent part of the afternoon before the pipeline hearing making signs and sitting quietly as tribal leaders explained the project and why it must be stopped.

"You've got to understand that it's a huge, multibillion-dollar project that they're trying to put through our lands. And it's going to be a tough fight, because they have so much money. They probably have 10 lawyers to our one," Geraldine Thomas-Flurer, the Saik'uz First Nation's liaison on the Northern Gateway issue, told the students.

Tribal Chief Jackie Thomas has held meetings and written letters pointing out Enbridge's record on accidents, including the spill of 810,000 gallons of oil from a pipeline in Michigan in 2010, much of which flowed 30 miles downstream into the Kalamazoo River. Enbridge has spent $700 million so far and workers are still trying to clean it up.

"It's going to be a war," she predicted of the fight ahead. "The only question is, who's going to draw the first blood?"

Enbridge has provided assurances that modern pipelines are assembled with thick steel construction, rapid shutoff valves and constant inspections that make big spills unlikely.

The company has offered 43 aboriginal communities along the route of the pipeline the chance to buy into a 10% equity share, a deal that could net them an estimated $230 million over the 30-year life of the project.

About half the communities have signed, company spokesman Stanway said. Many nonnative residents say they are supporting the project because of its potential for a long stream of revenue, including more than $30 million a year in local tax revenue for British Columbia.

"The doomsayers, the merchants of misery say it will leak and it will destroy the fishing industry," said Colin Kinsley, a former mayor of Prince George, who now heads the Northern Gateway Alliance, a group championing the pipeline.

"Nobody can say it won't leak at some point. You know, things happen. Who would've thought a billion-dollar cruise ship would run into a rock in Italy in the middle of the day? But every bit of risk management and redundancy and mitigation has been put into this plan. I'm not worried about it."


go hug a tree: Canada revs up for fight over second tar sands oil pipeline - latimes.com

Originally Posted by koman

What is important is that these "leaks" are miniscule in most cases, and with very few exceptions (like the one Robuzo is so wired up over) they cause no significant damage to persons or property.

Silly statement, especially if you’re the/a property owner next to one of these lines.

"Nobody can say it won't leak at some point. You know, things happen. Who would've thought a billion-dollar cruise ship would run into a rock in Italy in the middle of the day? But every bit of risk management and redundancy and mitigation has been put into this plan. I'm not worried about it."

Translation: "There's money to made now. Who cares what happens in the future or who we poison?" Whores.

But what does it matter when Two Thirds Support Keystone XL Pipeline.

THE SHOW MUST GO ON.......

So Mr. Obama freely admits that delaying the XL line was just politics and nothing to do with the actual merits of the project. ...... finally a bit of honesty from the WH on this piece of nonsense.

Smart move by TransCanada.....build it and they will come.....

CALGARY - Energy giant TransCanada plans to build the most urgently needed portion of its controversial Keystone XL oil pipeline as a US$2.3-billion stand-alone project.

The Gulf Coast project will be subject to regulatory approvals, but because it will not cross the Canada-U.S. border, it will not need the U.S. presidential approval that tripped up the company's original proposal to pipe crude from Alberta to Texas.
The Calgary-based pipeline company (TSX:TRP) said Monday the Cushing, Okla., to Gulf Coast leg - meant to relieve a supply glut of oil in the middle of the U.S. and boost prices and producers' bottom lines - should be in service by mid to late 2013.
　
"The Gulf Coast Project will transport growing supplies of U.S. crude oil to meet refinery demand in Texas," said TransCanada CEO Russ Girling in a release
"Gulf Coast refineries can then access lower cost domestic production and avoid paying a premium to foreign oil producers. This would reduce the United States' dependence on foreign crude and allow Americans to use more of the crude oil produced in their own country."
The original US$7.6-billion project would have sent oilsands crude from northern Alberta across the border through six U.S. states to Texas refineries. Oil from some U.S. fields like the Bakken in Montana and North Dakota would have also fed into that line.
However, the State Department denied a key permit in January after the project was assailed by environmentalists and other critics worried about its impact on water systems in Nebraska.
The State Department has final say over whether pipelines that cross international borders are in the national interest. The move Monday will allow crude to start flowing on part of the line sooner than if TransCanada were to seek a new permit for the whole Alberta-to-Gulf Coast system.
"In our view, TRP’s effort to advance the southern leg ahead of the larger (and more contentious) northern portion of (Keystone) XL is likely to speed up the regulatory process, which should ultimately allow the company to complete the proposed pipeline more quickly," said Desjardins Securities analyst Pierre Lacroix in a note to clients.
"At the same time, TRP is also likely to be able to better serve shipper demand by placing the southern portion into service as rapidly as possible."
White House press secretary Jay Carney said Monday that U.S. President Barack Obama was pleased with TransCanada's latest announcement.
"Moving oil from the Midwest to the world-class, state-of-the-art refineries on the Gulf Coast will modernize our infrastructure, create jobs, and encourage American energy production," Carney said in a statement.
"We look forward to working with TransCanada to ensure that it is built in a safe, responsible and timely manner, and we commit to take every step possible to expedite the necessary federal permits."
Travis Davies, a spokesman for the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, said the decision to move the Gulf Coast portion first is a "pretty positive" development, and that it's happy to see TransCanada continuing to pursue the northern part of the line at the same time.
"Of course that's what we're most concerned about, getting access to that market," Davies said.
Oilsands crude can get to the U.S. market now through TransCanada's base Keystone system, which currently delivers crude to the U.S. Midwest and Cushing, and an extensive network of oil pipelines operated by rival Enbridge Inc. (TSX:ENB).
Enbridge itself is looking to tap into the Gulf Coast market through two pipeline projects - one that runs from the Chicago area to Cushing, and the reversed Seaway pipeline from Cushing to the Gulf.
TransCanada's move won't change Enbridge's plans, said CEO Pat Daniel, who announced Monday he'll be retiring later this year.
"We have assumed all the way along that Keystone XL - not only this portion, but in its entirety - will be built. That's in our plan and we work around that."
Oilsands producers say there's enough pipeline capacity from Canada to the U.S. for now, but their planned expansion in the years ahead depends on new pipelines - the full Keystone XL or Enbridge's Northern Gateway pipeline across northern B.C. to the West Coast. Some have touted rail transport as a stop-gap solution.
On Keystone XL, the State Department dealt TransCanada two blows in recent months. In the fall, it delayed a decision until early 2013 so TransCanada could work out a new route through Nebraska to avoid ecologically sensitive areas.
Then, last month, it denied TransCanada a permit for the project, but left the door open for the company to apply for a new one.
Obama said a deadline imposed on his administration by the Republicans to make a decision by Feb. 21 didn't allow enough time to adequately study a new route through Nebraska, so he had no choice but to reject the project.
But he said the decision had less to do with the pipeline's merits than with the arbitrary deadline the Republicans had set.
TransCanada said Monday it will file a new presidential permit application for the northern part of Keystone XL from the Canada-U.S. border at Montana to Steele City, Neb., in the "near future."
"Our application will include the already reviewed route in Montana and South Dakota," Girling said.
"The over three-year environmental review for Keystone XL completed last summer was the most comprehensive process ever for a cross-border pipeline. Based on that work, we would expect our cross- border permit should be processed expeditiously and a decision made once a new route in Nebraska is determined."
Speaking to reporters by phone from Chicago, Alberta Premier Alison Redford said while the Gulf Coast project is "good news," her team is not taking its eyes off the bigger picture.
"In terms of being constructive and demonstrating success, this will assist in the other application for the presidential permit," she said.
"(But) I'm not going to take the position that somehow because the second piece has been built we don't need to concentrate on the first. I think it all matters."
Bill McKibben, an environmental activist who led high-profile protests against Keystone XL, said the Gulf Coast project won't bring more oilsands crude into the United States, a major concern amongst pipeline critics who say that type of oil is dirtier than other sources.
However, "we stand with our allies across the region who are fighting to keep giant multinational corporations from condemning their lands. This fight is uniting people, from environmentalists to Tea Partiers, in all kinds of ways," McKibben said in an emailed statement.
TransCanada shares rose 39 cents to $42.39 on the Toronto Stock Exchange.

^

Originally Posted by koman

Obama said a deadline imposed on his administration by the Republicans to make a decision by Feb. 21 didn't allow enough time to adequately study a new route through Nebraska, so he had no choice but to reject the project.
But he said the decision had less to do with the pipeline's merits than with the arbitrary deadline the Republicans had set.
...
"The over three-year environmental review for Keystone XL completed last summer was the most comprehensive process ever for a cross-border pipeline. Based on that work, we would expect our cross- border permit should be processed expeditiously and a decision made once a new route in Nebraska is determined."

Ya, studies already done, but obama had to kiss enviro butts and blame the GOP for the delay -- who's playing politics? Good for Canada -- heck, it's looking more conservative & capitalistic by the day. Must be my influence.

Lakota Indians Block 'Keystone XL Pipeline' Trucks in Six-Hour Standoff


Five Lakotas on Pine Ridge Indian land in South Dakota were arrested Monday after attempting to block two tarsands pipeline trucks from entering their land. According to the Lakota activist the six-hour standoff started when the trucks refused to turn around claiming they had "corporate rights that supersede any other law."

According to the Rapid City Journal "several dozens" of American Indians were part of the blockade but a community journalist reports only five people were arrested.

Lakota Indians Block 'Keystone XL Pipeline' Trucks in Six-Hour Standoff | AlterNet

Study Warns of Economic Damage in a Keystone Pipeline Spill

A report released on Tuesday by Cornell University’s Global Labor Institute concludes that the economic damage caused by potential spills from the Keystone XL pipeline could far outweigh the benefits of jobs created by the project.

The institute, which advocates the creation of union jobs in renewable energy and analyzes sustainability issues, said that more than a million people work in agricultural or tourism jobs in the six states along Keystone XL’s route and that the economic costs could be considerable if a major spill occurred.

The risks of an economically damaging accident are higher than those for conventional crude, the report said, because pipelines carrying oil sands crude are more prone to spills, an argument long made by opponents of the Keystone XL project.

The report cited a spill from an Enbridge Energy pipeline in July 2010 that dumped about 843,000 gallons of oil sands crude near Marshall, Mich., and has been especially difficult and expensive to clean.

“Given where the pipeline is scheduled to go, it’s not inconceivable that a spill like the Enbridge pipeline spill could occur,” said Sean Sweeney, the institute’s director and a co-author of the study. “And if it contaminated a major waterway in a remote area, it could take a long time to deal with.”

TransCanada, whose application to build Keystone XL was rejected by President Obama in January, dismissed the report and cited an initial review by the State Department that found the pipeline would have little adverse environmental impact if operated properly.

Terry Cunha, a spokesman for TransCanada, said the company stood by its projections that Keystone XL would create thousands of jobs. “Common sense will tell you that you can’t build the largest infrastructure on the books in the U.S. right now without a significant number of people,” he said.

In turning away TransCanada’s application in January, President Obama said a deadline imposed by Congress for deciding Keystone XL’s fate did not allow sufficient time to complete environmental reviews. But he left open the door for the company to reapply for a fresh permit, and last month TransCanada announced its intention to do just that.

TransCanada is also in the process of seeking permission to move forward with a southern portion of the 1,700-mile pipeline, from Cushing, Okla., to the Gulf Coast, which would not require the State Department’s approval.

With that in mind, and with a decision on Keystone XL still likely to play a major role during the general election, foes of the pipeline were quick to hail Tuesday’s report as the latest evidence that the project was unsafe.

“This report turns the political discussions around job creation on its head,” said Danielle Droitsch, an attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council. “The pipeline will be an economic liability.”

“The pipeline will be an economic liability.”
Could be, but I believe in time it will be approved/built: Study Warns of Economic Damage in a Keystone Pipeline Spill - NYTimes.com

FFS, we've had pipelines crisscrossing North America for decades. Get over it. I'm sure ALL the lefties here ride bicycles and row their own canoes to cross the oceans back to the home country.

I'll row my canoe home as soon as all hypocritical Republicans send back their government benefit checks and get off government health care.

Originally Posted by misskit

I'll row my canoe home as soon as all hypocritical Republicans send back their government benefit checks and get off government health care.

Take a look at San Diego and your other left loon cities. Oops, can't afford those union pensions no mo. I don't think these beneficiaries are GOPers.

San Diego tackles municipal pensions

A mayoral candidate is pushing to put an overhaul measure on the June ballot. But unions are trying to block the effort. Elected officials across the U.S. are watching.


February 19, 2012|By Tony Perry, Los Angeles Times
Reporting from San Diego — The numbers released by the city's leading pension hawk were meant to shock: a retired assistant city attorney with an annual pension of $307,758; a chief librarian receiving $234,091; an 80% increase in the last two years in the number of retired city employees with pensions of more than $100,000.
"At a time when roads are falling apart, services are being cut and private-sector taxpayers are facing difficult economic realities, these pension payouts are simply offensive," Councilman Carl DeMaio, a candidate for mayor, said at a news conference last week.




San Diego's pension overhaul effort is being watched across the U.S. - Los Angeles Times

^ Thank you, Minnie, for proving my point. San Diego is a solid Republican stronghold in California.

Originally Posted by Minnie Maugham

FFS, we've had pipelines crisscrossing North America for decades. Get over it. I'm sure ALL the lefties here ride bicycles and row their own canoes to cross the oceans back to the home country.

I'm still waiting (patiently) for one of the left wing experts to tell us how oil can be moved from the well head to the refinery without a pipeline, or an oil tanker, or train or......all of which carry a certain amount of inherent risk...?? (but tolerable and acceptable to any reasonable person)

I'd like to hear their views on how we can manage zero risk projects and zero risk living in general.

While they are at it, it would also be good to hear how importing oil from unstable and unfriendly places across oceans is better planning and strategy than developing the resources in your back yard. I'm sure we will have full and detailed explanations shortly.....

I think some of these people actually think riding bicycles and river travel by canoe is a workable solution......not forgetting the windmills and solar panels of course.....