State Department to reject Keystone XL application

[VectorVictor]

GoBiggerGoRedder, go read the Cornell University study from cover to cover. In it, they use KXL and TransCanada's own applications to the various states, including Nebraska, to show the number of jobs that will be created is vastly overstated in their impact, quantity, and length (two years, maximum).

 

Plus, the idea that there is residual job creation from this in the U.S. is fallacy at best. Do you seriously think that TransCanda and KXL will just abandon their steel contract with India for a large project of this nature? Do you think KXL will send back the majority of the pipeline they've already procured from India and China?

 

Additionally, this oil is not for domestic consumtion--it's being sent to Texas refineries for export to developing nations, namely China, Brazil, and India.

 

Also, the report cites fourteen spills reported during 2010 on a similar, existing pipeline, carrying similar crude. Why there are expectations that this will be any different in 2012 is anyone's guess, but to even gamble on such a losing bet with an aquifer that is vital to five (or seven, depending) states is beyond asinine.

 

And people are still talking about the BP oilspill in the south, because BP still hasn't paid everyone as they promised, there is still residual oil in the harvested fish, and there are serious, unexplained flucuations in the various fish populations being harvested. Saw something on this just the other day, actually.

[knapplc]

Additionally, this oil is not for domestic consumtion--it's being sent to Texas refineries for export to developing nations, namely China, Brazil, and India.

 

What possible reason could they have for doing this? Is it an attempt to wean these countries off Middle Eastern oil, cutting their world influence at the same time? Or is it that this is a bad oil product, and we're not interested in using the bad oil ourselves?

 

I wondered when they were announcing this pipeline why they didn't just build refineries up north where the oil is. Makes more sense now.

[carlfense]

Additionally, this oil is not for domestic consumtion--it's being sent to Texas refineries for export to developing nations, namely China, Brazil, and India.

 

What possible reason could they have for doing this? Is it an attempt to wean these countries off Middle Eastern oil, cutting their world influence at the same time? Or is it that this is a bad oil product, and we're not interested in using the bad oil ourselves?

 

I wondered when they were announcing this pipeline why they didn't just build refineries up north where the oil is. Makes more sense now.

I think largely because the oil is used primarily as a heavy fuel oil and not refined into gasoline. China and other countries are more dependent on HFOs and are therefore willing to pay more.

[VectorVictor]

Additionally, this oil is not for domestic consumtion--it's being sent to Texas refineries for export to developing nations, namely China, Brazil, and India.

 

What possible reason could they have for doing this? Is it an attempt to wean these countries off Middle Eastern oil, cutting their world influence at the same time? Or is it that this is a bad oil product, and we're not interested in using the bad oil ourselves?

 

I wondered when they were announcing this pipeline why they didn't just build refineries up north where the oil is. Makes more sense now.

I think largely because the oil is used primarily as a heavy fuel oil and not refined into gasoline. China and other countries are more dependent on HFOs and are therefore willing to pay more.

 

Carlfense, you're dead on with your answer, Sir.

 

---

 

On a related note, now that the pipeline has been given a temporary kibosh, it appears that the Oracle of Omaha, who procured Burlington-Northern Railroad some time ago, stands to benefit the most.

 

TransCanada has come out and said they'll contract with Burlington-Northern to transport this oil by rail to Texas now. And those Texas jobs are still going to be created and/or sustained--the only ones missing are the one to two year temp jobs building the pipeline, and the mythical secondary jobs which wouldn't materialize because of TransCanada's existing contracts.

 

So the sum of this whole exercise is that TransCanada and KXL wanted to jeopardize the largest underground aquifer which services a large number of 'flyover' states to save a buck on transportation costs.

[carlfense]

Additionally, this oil is not for domestic consumtion--it's being sent to Texas refineries for export to developing nations, namely China, Brazil, and India.

 

What possible reason could they have for doing this? Is it an attempt to wean these countries off Middle Eastern oil, cutting their world influence at the same time? Or is it that this is a bad oil product, and we're not interested in using the bad oil ourselves?

 

I wondered when they were announcing this pipeline why they didn't just build refineries up north where the oil is. Makes more sense now.

I think largely because the oil is used primarily as a heavy fuel oil and not refined into gasoline. China and other countries are more dependent on HFOs and are therefore willing to pay more.

 

Carlfense, you're dead on with your answer, Sir.

 

---

 

On a related note, now that the pipeline has been given a temporary kibosh, it appears that the Oracle of Omaha, who procured Burlington-Northern Railroad some time ago, stands to benefit the most.

 

TransCanada has come out and said they'll contract with Burlington-Northern to transport this oil by rail to Texas now. And those Texas jobs are still going to be created and/or sustained--the only ones missing are the one to two year temp jobs building the pipeline, and the mythical secondary jobs which wouldn't materialize because of TransCanada's existing contracts.

 

So the sum of this whole exercise is that TransCanada and KXL wanted to jeopardize the largest underground aquifer which services a large number of 'flyover' states to save a buck on transportation costs.

But . . . but . . . they said that they were going to sell it directly to China?!

[VectorVictor]

Additionally, this oil is not for domestic consumtion--it's being sent to Texas refineries for export to developing nations, namely China, Brazil, and India.

 

What possible reason could they have for doing this? Is it an attempt to wean these countries off Middle Eastern oil, cutting their world influence at the same time? Or is it that this is a bad oil product, and we're not interested in using the bad oil ourselves?

 

I wondered when they were announcing this pipeline why they didn't just build refineries up north where the oil is. Makes more sense now.

I think largely because the oil is used primarily as a heavy fuel oil and not refined into gasoline. China and other countries are more dependent on HFOs and are therefore willing to pay more.

 

Carlfense, you're dead on with your answer, Sir.

 

---

 

On a related note, now that the pipeline has been given a temporary kibosh, it appears that the Oracle of Omaha, who procured Burlington-Northern Railroad some time ago, stands to benefit the most.

 

TransCanada has come out and said they'll contract with Burlington-Northern to transport this oil by rail to Texas now. And those Texas jobs are still going to be created and/or sustained--the only ones missing are the one to two year temp jobs building the pipeline, and the mythical secondary jobs which wouldn't materialize because of TransCanada's existing contracts.

 

So the sum of this whole exercise is that TransCanada and KXL wanted to jeopardize the largest underground aquifer which services a large number of 'flyover' states to save a buck on transportation costs.

But . . . but . . . they said that they were going to sell it directly to China?!

 

They say a lot of things, of which very little is ever reasonably true, and even less is actually true.

[HSKR]

If this oil ends up being shipped by rail instead of pipeline this will be a big loss for environmentalism. How ironic would it be if the route ends up being BNSF's rail through the Sandhills? I'd much rather risk a pipeline leak in better soil in Eastern NE then a train derailment into the Middle Loup River.

[carlfense]

If this oil ends up being shipped by rail instead of pipeline this will be a big loss for environmentalism. How ironic would it be if the route ends up being BNSF's rail through the Sandhills? I'd much rather risk a pipeline leak in better soil in Eastern NE then a train derailment into the Middle Loup River.

How about a pipeline leak into the Middle Loup River? TransCanada blew this one. They tried to shorten the route to pocket a little extra money . . . without concern for the sensitive environment of the sandhills and aquifer. Route this pipeline correctly from the beginning and I'd be willing to bet that it wouldn't have turned into a political football.

[krill]

Additionally, this oil is not for domestic consumtion--it's being sent to Texas refineries for export to developing nations, namely China, Brazil, and India.

 

What possible reason could they have for doing this? Is it an attempt to wean these countries off Middle Eastern oil, cutting their world influence at the same time? Or is it that this is a bad oil product, and we're not interested in using the bad oil ourselves?

 

I wondered when they were announcing this pipeline why they didn't just build refineries up north where the oil is. Makes more sense now.

 

Because refineries are extremely expensive and take a great many years to approve and build. The gulf region has a robust infrastructure built up for refining and transporting a full array of petrochemical products, and since imports of heavy oils from Mexico and Venezuela have been in decline, that's why the Keystone XL pipeline has come into focus as a replacement for those imports. It's my understanding that basically, refineries are set up to refine one type of crude oil (there are an array of types and qualities), and changing the input oil or output refined product is time consuming and expensive, if it can even be done at all. The profit margins in oil refining are also quite small.

[HSKR]

If this oil ends up being shipped by rail instead of pipeline this will be a big loss for environmentalism. How ironic would it be if the route ends up being BNSF's rail through the Sandhills? I'd much rather risk a pipeline leak in better soil in Eastern NE then a train derailment into the Middle Loup River.

How about a pipeline leak into the Middle Loup River? TransCanada blew this one. They tried to shorten the route to pocket a little extra money . . . without concern for the sensitive environment of the sandhills and aquifer. Route this pipeline correctly from the beginning and I'd be willing to bet that it wouldn't have turned into a political football.

That would be a little hard since the pipeline was 100 miles from there, but I agree with the sentiment. TransCanada should have been smarter from the get go. Not seeing how having diesel locomotives carrying the load is better for the environment then electric pumps on a pipeline.

[carlfense]

If this oil ends up being shipped by rail instead of pipeline this will be a big loss for environmentalism. How ironic would it be if the route ends up being BNSF's rail through the Sandhills? I'd much rather risk a pipeline leak in better soil in Eastern NE then a train derailment into the Middle Loup River.

How about a pipeline leak into the Middle Loup River? TransCanada blew this one. They tried to shorten the route to pocket a little extra money . . . without concern for the sensitive environment of the sandhills and aquifer. Route this pipeline correctly from the beginning and I'd be willing to bet that it wouldn't have turned into a political football.

That would be a little hard since the pipeline was 100 miles from there, but I agree with the sentiment. TransCanada should have been smarter from the get go. Not seeing how having diesel locomotives carrying the load is better for the environment then electric pumps on a pipeline.

100 miles? That . . . or about 10 miles. Not to mention it would have crossed the Loup. Strange argument.

 

[HSKR]

If this oil ends up being shipped by rail instead of pipeline this will be a big loss for environmentalism. How ironic would it be if the route ends up being BNSF's rail through the Sandhills? I'd much rather risk a pipeline leak in better soil in Eastern NE then a train derailment into the Middle Loup River.

How about a pipeline leak into the Middle Loup River? TransCanada blew this one. They tried to shorten the route to pocket a little extra money . . . without concern for the sensitive environment of the sandhills and aquifer. Route this pipeline correctly from the beginning and I'd be willing to bet that it wouldn't have turned into a political football.

That would be a little hard since the pipeline was 100 miles from there, but I agree with the sentiment. TransCanada should have been smarter from the get go. Not seeing how having diesel locomotives carrying the load is better for the environment then electric pumps on a pipeline.

100 miles? That . . . or about 10 miles. Not to mention it would have crossed the Loup. Strange argument.

 

OK, my bad. I thought we were talking about the rail route along the Middle Loup through the Sandhills, roughly Dunning to Mullen and the location of the pipeline from there. You are correct that the pipeline path was closer then that to the river.

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-23/buffett-s-burlington-northern-among-winners-in-obama-rejection-of-pipeline.html

 

This confirms it will be the Highway 2 rail route. You mentioned it crossed the Loup. How many times does this rail route cross back and forth over the Middle Loup? Better yet, how many miles does this route parallel the river within mere feet? I guess first I need to ask you if you feel rail is a safer method of transfering this oil then pipeline? You have previously expressed that you didn't want this oil coming through Nebraska at all in the pipeline, how do feel that it will now be rolling through Lincoln on tankers on a daily basis while at the same time increasing greenhouse gas emissions? But hey at least Warren will be lining his pockets.

 

I'd day the Obama administration just sacrificed the environment for corporate greed.

[carlfense]

OK, my bad. I thought we were talking about the rail route along the Middle Loup through the Sandhills, roughly Dunning to Mullen and the location of the pipeline from there. You are correct that the pipeline path was closer then that to the river.

 

http://www.bloomberg...f-pipeline.html

 

This confirms it will be the Highway 2 rail route. You mentioned it crossed the Loup. How many times does this rail route cross back and forth over the Middle Loup? Better yet, how many miles does this route parallel the river within mere feet? I guess first I need to ask you if you feel rail is a safer method of transfering this oil then pipeline? You have previously expressed that you didn't want this oil coming through Nebraska at all in the pipeline, how do feel that it will now be rolling through Lincoln on tankers on a daily basis while at the same time increasing greenhouse gas emissions? But hey at least Warren will be lining his pockets.

 

I'd day the Obama administration just sacrificed the environment for corporate greed.

If you're wondering whether I support the transport of the tar sands by rail, I don't. Unfortunately, as far as I know they don't need any sort of approval to transport by rail. I guess if there is an upside it is that the government isn't forcing these private landowners to let TransCanada come through. Small government conservatives should be applauding.

 

Actually, my guess is that Keystone XL is approved eventually. There is simply too much money behind it. Not to mention that TransCanada never said that they were going to transport by rail if the pipeline wasn't approved . . . in fact they threatened to sell directly to other countries. Looks like we called their bluff . . . and they had 2-7 off suit.

 

Anyways. I think that transport of the tar sands by rail will probably be just about as risky as TransCanada's existing Keystone pipeline. Cross your fingers.

[knapplc]

I'd day the Obama administration just sacrificed the environment for corporate greed.

 

A rail car ruptures, spilling 30,000 gallons of oil. Or, a pipeline ruptures, spilling hundreds of thousands of gallons of oil.

 

I'm not seeing how Obama purposefully sacrificed the environment.

 

[carlfense]

I'd day the Obama administration just sacrificed the environment for corporate greed.

 

A rail car ruptures, spilling 30,000 gallons of oil. Or, a pipeline ruptures, spilling hundreds of thousands of gallons of oil.

 

I'm not seeing how Obama purposefully sacrificed the environment.

 

Plus, you would assume that the response for an above ground rail accident would be faster and easier than a buried pipeline.