Jump to content


Keystone Pipeline


Recommended Posts

USA Today is carrying the story about the Obama Administration's decision to possibly find new route for the $7B TransCanada Keystone pipeline, "pushing a final decision on the controversial project past the 2012 election." President Obama has been under pressure from environmentalists to stop the pipeline construction and from unions who want construction to begin since it will supposedly generate some 20,000 jobs. The President has said that the delay was needed to make sure "all the potential impacts are properly understood."

 

In other words, he voted "Present" once again.

 

 

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/story/2011-11-10/keystone-pipeline-delay/51158744/1

Link to comment

Obama is correct (even a blind squirrel finds a nut every once in a while), this leak-prone pipeline should not be going over key aquafiers.

And this is where alot of people are wrong. The safety measures to prevent leaks for pipelines are taken very seriously. The DOT and EPA do audits continuously to see if companies are maintaining the correct measures for keeping the pipelines safe. Pipeline companies also have to run tools that moniter and detect any defects that have occured on the pipeline. These defects are then reported to the DOT and determined what the seriousness of it is and the measurements to repairing it. In all honesty, a semi hauling oil has a better chance of having a leak then a pipeline does.

Link to comment

Obama is correct (even a blind squirrel finds a nut every once in a while), this leak-prone pipeline should not be going over key aquafiers.

And this is where alot of people are wrong. The safety measures to prevent leaks for pipelines are taken very seriously. The DOT and EPA do audits continuously to see if companies are maintaining the correct measures for keeping the pipelines safe. Pipeline companies also have to run tools that moniter and detect any defects that have occured on the pipeline. These defects are then reported to the DOT and determined what the seriousness of it is and the measurements to repairing it. In all honesty, a semi hauling oil has a better chance of having a leak then a pipeline does.

 

Stumpy - you and I know that this isn't about safety. It's about avoiding a decision that will alienate part of the Democrat base, regardless of what is decided.

Link to comment

For what it's worth to add to the discussion....................I got this from a Ph.D friend who is a senior hydrologist and geologist who is often called to testify in state disputes concerning environmental liabilities.

Not being a professional scientist myself, I tend to listen to the experts in the field.

But of course, this decision has very little to do with facts and a whole lot to do with politics.

 

THE FACTS BEHIND THE “MOVE THE ROUTE” DISCUSSION

Over the past few weeks, we have been involved in a public discussion about moving the proposed Keystone XL pipeline route. While we have taken these suggestions seriously, moving the route is simply something that TransCanada is unable to do. This is not about being stubborn or unresponsive. It’s about following the rules we are required to honor and avoiding a route that will cross more waterways, disturb more special and sensitive areas and require the excavation of far more land.

The people who are now lobbying for a different route first opposed the pipeline altogether. Then they didn’t like the product that would be shipped through the pipeline. Today, they say they can accept the pipeline, but they want it to take a different route.

But the truth is: professional activists who are behind the opposition to Keystone XL are solely opposed to the consumption of fossil fuels. As more media outlets are reporting, these groups are pouring millions of dollars into the campaign against the pipeline and into misleading pressure campaigns in Nebraska. But when all is said and done, they will disappear and move on to their next campaign. TransCanada, on the other hand, has been in Nebraska for three decades and we will be here for a long time to come.

These professional activists and lawyers want you to focus on publicity stunts and the same false information they pump out over and over again. They don’t deal with the facts about the pipeline, the oil it carries, the enhanced safety measures TransCanada has agreed to implement or the safety and environmental commitments TransCanada has made in Nebraska and elsewhere.

So as the debate continues, keep these facts in mind:

· Pipelines are far and away the safest way to transport crude oil. They do not have to compete with bad weather, traffic accidents, detours and other human factors that lead to many more incidents than pipelines have ever experienced.

· TransCanada has agreed to 57 additional safety and operating procedures – measures that are not in place on other pipelines in Nebraska and elsewhere in the U.S., such as burying the pipe deeper, installing more automatic safety shut-off valves and increased pipeline inspections. Federal regulators acknowledge these steps will make Keystone XL safer than other pipelines in operation today.

· In Nebraska, TransCanada has also offered to implement more safety, construction and operating practices that will provide enhanced protection for the sensitive Sandhills region.

· With the issuance of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) by the U.S, Department of State, the route for Keystone XL has been confirmed. That means that if a Presidential Permit is received, the route has already been reviewed extensively, confirmed to be the safest and most environmentally responsible and the only one that is permitted under federal rules and regulations.

When TransCanada made its application for the construction and operation of Keystone XL, we applied for a preferred route. However, during the course of the three-year review process, we also provided data to the Department of State on a total of 14 route configurations for the entire pipeline, and eight specific alternative routes that would have had a direct impact on the State of Nebraska. With each federal environmental review, the route we have selected has been confirmed and re-affirmed as the safest one that will also have the least amount of environmental disturbance of all the routes assessed.

These facts do not change and it is odd that so-called environmental and conservation groups are pushing legislators, regulators and TransCanada to move the pipeline to a route that will have more environmental disturbance.

A New Route Brings New Risks Not Yet Even Considered

There is also something just as important to consider in the pipeline routing debate. We do not make an application to regulators to apply for any route; we apply for a preferred route and also present alternatives to consider. The FEIS has confirmed (once again) that the route we applied for is the one that the pipeline should follow. You cannot simply change the route, as some would like people to believe. It involves a re-start of the entire regulatory process – one that has already taken over three years – almost twice as long as the average review process. It involves a new regulatory review and a brand new application, because each route will have its own unique geological, environmental, design and operating characteristics. Designing, constructing and operating pipelines takes a lot of expert input and is a complex exercise. We should know – we’ve been doing this for almost 60 years in the United States and have operated pipeline systems in Nebraska for the past three decades.

Finally, there are some who insist that the route should simply avoid the Ogallala Aquifer – and that could be done easily within the State of Nebraska. What they either do not know or fail to tell the public is that the Ogallala Aquifer covers almost the entire State of Nebraska, and runs through six other states. And the first Keystone pipeline runs through the aquifer. The Platte pipeline has been operating safely through the aquifer since 1952.

In fact, 15,000 miles of oil pipelines already transport more than 30 billion gallons of oil – safely – across the Ogallala every year! Not to mention the hazardous goods pipelines, refined products pipelines and other pipelines that carry products required to preserve and protect our quality of life. Since oil was discovered in Nebraska in 1939, 20,000 wells have been drilled in search of oil and gas, the majority of them right down through the Ogallala Aquifer. Yet, in producing and transporting over 500 million barrels of Nebraska crude, the Aquifer has never been contaminated with oil.

TransCanada understands the importance of operating a safe, environmentally responsible pipeline. We have been doing that for 60 years. We are a part of Nebraska, and understand the special relationship that Nebraskans feel with the land. We share that understanding, and have done more than any other pipeline company to provide additional safety and operating procedures to make this the safest pipeline ever built.

Link to comment
Obama is correct (even a blind squirrel finds a nut every once in a while), this leak-prone pipeline should not be going over key aquafiers.

 

And this is where alot of people are wrong. The safety measures to prevent leaks for pipelines are taken very seriously. The DOT and EPA do audits continuously to see if companies are maintaining the correct measures for keeping the pipelines safe. Pipeline companies also have to run tools that moniter and detect any defects that have occured on the pipeline. These defects are then reported to the DOT and determined what the seriousness of it is and the measurements to repairing it. In all honesty, a semi hauling oil has a better chance of having a leak then a pipeline does.

 

Sorry, I don't believe that.

 

Their past history shows me that I should not.

Link to comment

For what it's worth to add to the discussion....................I got this from a Ph.D friend who is a senior hydrologist and geologist who is often called to testify in state disputes concerning environmental liabilities.

Not being a professional scientist myself, I tend to listen to the experts in the field.

But of course, this decision has very little to do with facts and a whole lot to do with politics.

 

THE FACTS BEHIND THE “MOVE THE ROUTE” DISCUSSION

Over the past few weeks, we have been involved in a public discussion about moving the proposed Keystone XL pipeline route. While we have taken these suggestions seriously, moving the route is simply something that TransCanada is unable to do. This is not about being stubborn or unresponsive. It’s about following the rules we are required to honor and avoiding a route that will cross more waterways, disturb more special and sensitive areas and require the excavation of far more land.

The people who are now lobbying for a different route first opposed the pipeline altogether. Then they didn’t like the product that would be shipped through the pipeline. Today, they say they can accept the pipeline, but they want it to take a different route.

But the truth is: professional activists who are behind the opposition to Keystone XL are solely opposed to the consumption of fossil fuels. As more media outlets are reporting, these groups are pouring millions of dollars into the campaign against the pipeline and into misleading pressure campaigns in Nebraska. But when all is said and done, they will disappear and move on to their next campaign. TransCanada, on the other hand, has been in Nebraska for three decades and we will be here for a long time to come.

These professional activists and lawyers want you to focus on publicity stunts and the same false information they pump out over and over again. They don’t deal with the facts about the pipeline, the oil it carries, the enhanced safety measures TransCanada has agreed to implement or the safety and environmental commitments TransCanada has made in Nebraska and elsewhere.

So as the debate continues, keep these facts in mind:

· Pipelines are far and away the safest way to transport crude oil. They do not have to compete with bad weather, traffic accidents, detours and other human factors that lead to many more incidents than pipelines have ever experienced.

· TransCanada has agreed to 57 additional safety and operating procedures – measures that are not in place on other pipelines in Nebraska and elsewhere in the U.S., such as burying the pipe deeper, installing more automatic safety shut-off valves and increased pipeline inspections. Federal regulators acknowledge these steps will make Keystone XL safer than other pipelines in operation today.

· In Nebraska, TransCanada has also offered to implement more safety, construction and operating practices that will provide enhanced protection for the sensitive Sandhills region.

· With the issuance of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) by the U.S, Department of State, the route for Keystone XL has been confirmed. That means that if a Presidential Permit is received, the route has already been reviewed extensively, confirmed to be the safest and most environmentally responsible and the only one that is permitted under federal rules and regulations.

When TransCanada made its application for the construction and operation of Keystone XL, we applied for a preferred route. However, during the course of the three-year review process, we also provided data to the Department of State on a total of 14 route configurations for the entire pipeline, and eight specific alternative routes that would have had a direct impact on the State of Nebraska. With each federal environmental review, the route we have selected has been confirmed and re-affirmed as the safest one that will also have the least amount of environmental disturbance of all the routes assessed.

These facts do not change and it is odd that so-called environmental and conservation groups are pushing legislators, regulators and TransCanada to move the pipeline to a route that will have more environmental disturbance.

 

A New Route Brings New Risks Not Yet Even Considered

There is also something just as important to consider in the pipeline routing debate. We do not make an application to regulators to apply for any route; we apply for a preferred route and also present alternatives to consider. The FEIS has confirmed (once again) that the route we applied for is the one that the pipeline should follow. You cannot simply change the route, as some would like people to believe. It involves a re-start of the entire regulatory process – one that has already taken over three years – almost twice as long as the average review process. It involves a new regulatory review and a brand new application, because each route will have its own unique geological, environmental, design and operating characteristics. Designing, constructing and operating pipelines takes a lot of expert input and is a complex exercise. We should know – we’ve been doing this for almost 60 years in the United States and have operated pipeline systems in Nebraska for the past three decades.

 

Finally, there are some who insist that the route should simply avoid the Ogallala Aquifer – and that could be done easily within the State of Nebraska. What they either do not know or fail to tell the public is that the Ogallala Aquifer covers almost the entire State of Nebraska, and runs through six other states. And the first Keystone pipeline runs through the aquifer. The Platte pipeline has been operating safely through the aquifer since 1952.

 

In fact, 15,000 miles of oil pipelines already transport more than 30 billion gallons of oil – safely – across the Ogallala every year! Not to mention the hazardous goods pipelines, refined products pipelines and other pipelines that carry products required to preserve and protect our quality of life. Since oil was discovered in Nebraska in 1939, 20,000 wells have been drilled in search of oil and gas, the majority of them right down through the Ogallala Aquifer. Yet, in producing and transporting over 500 million barrels of Nebraska crude, the Aquifer has never been contaminated with oil.

 

TransCanada understands the importance of operating a safe, environmentally responsible pipeline. We have been doing that for 60 years. We are a part of Nebraska, and understand the special relationship that Nebraskans feel with the land. We share that understanding, and have done more than any other pipeline company to provide additional safety and operating procedures to make this the safest pipeline ever built.

 

This is so spot on...If people did accually know how many pipelines run across the state and what they are pumping, it wouldn't be an issue at all. It does just show you that it is all political and nothing else.

Link to comment
Obama is correct (even a blind squirrel finds a nut every once in a while), this leak-prone pipeline should not be going over key aquafiers.

 

And this is where alot of people are wrong. The safety measures to prevent leaks for pipelines are taken very seriously. The DOT and EPA do audits continuously to see if companies are maintaining the correct measures for keeping the pipelines safe. Pipeline companies also have to run tools that moniter and detect any defects that have occured on the pipeline. These defects are then reported to the DOT and determined what the seriousness of it is and the measurements to repairing it. In all honesty, a semi hauling oil has a better chance of having a leak then a pipeline does.

 

Sorry, I don't believe that.

 

Their past history shows me that I should not.

You can believe what you want, but this the law and standards that are put into place for pipelines. What I explained is only a drop in the hat of what pipelines have to do to operate, not only in Nebraska, but in the whole US. If you think TransCanada is going to put in a pipeline and not moniter it or abide to state and federal laws, then you are wrong.

Link to comment

Obama is correct (even a blind squirrel finds a nut every once in a while), this leak-prone pipeline should not be going over key aquafiers.

 

And this is where alot of people are wrong. The safety measures to prevent leaks for pipelines are taken very seriously. The DOT and EPA do audits continuously to see if companies are maintaining the correct measures for keeping the pipelines safe. Pipeline companies also have to run tools that moniter and detect any defects that have occured on the pipeline. These defects are then reported to the DOT and determined what the seriousness of it is and the measurements to repairing it. In all honesty, a semi hauling oil has a better chance of having a leak then a pipeline does.

 

Sorry, I don't believe that.

 

Their past history shows me that I should not.

 

You can believe what you want, but this the law and standards that are put into place for pipelines. What I explained is only a drop in the hat of what pipelines have to do to operate, not only in Nebraska, but in the whole US. If you think TransCanada is going to put in a pipeline and not moniter it or abide to state and federal laws, then you are wrong.

 

BP was going to monitor their gulf platforms, Shell their Nigerian operations, and so on.

 

When these citizens/corporations take real responsibility for the damage they do or the people they kill, then I will trust them.

Link to comment
Obama is correct (even a blind squirrel finds a nut every once in a while), this leak-prone pipeline should not be going over key aquafiers.

 

And this is where alot of people are wrong. The safety measures to prevent leaks for pipelines are taken very seriously. The DOT and EPA do audits continuously to see if companies are maintaining the correct measures for keeping the pipelines safe. Pipeline companies also have to run tools that moniter and detect any defects that have occured on the pipeline. These defects are then reported to the DOT and determined what the seriousness of it is and the measurements to repairing it. In all honesty, a semi hauling oil has a better chance of having a leak then a pipeline does.

 

Sorry, I don't believe that.

 

Their past history shows me that I should not.

 

You can believe what you want, but this the law and standards that are put into place for pipelines. What I explained is only a drop in the hat of what pipelines have to do to operate, not only in Nebraska, but in the whole US. If you think TransCanada is going to put in a pipeline and not moniter it or abide to state and federal laws, then you are wrong.

 

BP was going to monitor their gulf platforms, Shell their Nigerian operations, and so on.

 

When these citizens/corporations take real responsibility for the damage they do or the people they kill, then I will trust them.

There is a big difference between oil drilling and oil pipelines. Its like crab fishing and then sending it to red lobster.

Link to comment

This pipeline issue is a perfect example of why the economy will not and cannot recover quickly under the Obama administration. The President's political belief system renders him incapable of making the decisions needed for recovery. In the case of the Keystone Pipeline, there are two blocs of his base at work here: the unions and the 20,000 jobs the pipeline is supposed to represent; and the environmentalists. Since he is dedicated to killing the fossil fuel industries, and has publicly said he would do that to coal, he cannot approve the pipeline. So he decides not to decide. His cover story is that he wants more information. The calculates that it should take exactly a year to get that information - right after the election next November. Meanwhile the economy continues to go down the toilet because he would rather vote "present" than to do what is right. He makes Jimmy Carter look decisive.

 

He's transparent alright...at least his motives are in this instance.

Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...