State Department to reject Keystone XL application

[VectorVictor]

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.

 

 

Don't worry, you're not missing anything--he didn't.

 

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.

 

Plus, the Cornell study notes that TransCanada, in reality, will only (only!) be spending approx. $4 billion in the U.S. on this. It would be much cheaper to contract out to the refineries in Texas and have them deal with the headache of converting over versus building a brand new refinery from the ground up and paying to headhunt/relocate people to Canada or the Northern US.

 

Now if the pipeline doesn't get implemented (and I don't think it will--it's not looking too good for the Republican candidates), Obama will be happy to settle with calling their bluff and letting one of his prominent economic advisers (and likely donor of substance as well) make money hand over fist with his very smart acquisition of BNSF Railroad.

[HSKR]

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.

 

 

 

So only one rail car will leak if a train derails? It doesn't take very many rail cars to get to your pipeline estimates. Bad comparison. It's already been stated that moving the oil by rail will cause more greenhouse gas emissions then the pipeline. Is that better for the environment? There is absolutely no reason why the Obama Administration couldn't have said that they approve the route with the exception of the Sandhills portion and worked with all agencies involved to get the 60 miles or so of detour rerouted and approved in and expedited manner yet this year. Heck they didn't even need to make an announcement until next month and they already killed it. But as Carlfense mentioned, they choose to play political football and punted.

[HSKR]

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.

 

 

I give you credit for sticking to your guns and not wanting this oil to be moved at all. I can appreciate that much more then the other antipipeline crowd suddenly boasting the merits of moving the oil by rail as if that is any better.

[knapplc]

Who said I was antipipeline? Let's not go crazy with the labels here.

[Sub-Husker]

The Republi-turds are at it again...

 

The want to attach (not attack) the Keystone Pipeline to a highway bill.

 

http://news.yahoo.co...-174244726.html

[HSKR]

The Republi-turds are at it again...

 

The want to attack the Keystone Pipeline to a highway bill.

 

http://news.yahoo.co...-174244726.html

 

I thought the Republicans were for the pipeline? Now they want to attack it?

[Sub-Husker]

The Republi-turds are at it again...

 

The want to attack the Keystone Pipeline to a highway bill.

 

http://news.yahoo.co...-174244726.html

 

I thought the Republicans were for the pipeline? Now they want to attack it?

 

It was a typo.

 

If you read the line I wrote, "attack" does not fit the contest, "attach" does.

 

If you hah hit the link, it would have been clear to you.

[HSKR]

The Republi-turds are at it again...

 

The want to attack the Keystone Pipeline to a highway bill.

 

http://news.yahoo.co...-174244726.html

 

I thought the Republicans were for the pipeline? Now they want to attack it?

 

It was a typo.

 

If you read the line I wrote, "attack" does not fit the contest, "attach" does.

 

If you hah hit the link, it would have been clear to you.

Sorry, my bad, I hah not hit the link.

[Sub-Husker]

Sorry, my bad, I hah not hit the link.

 

No problem, my typing is attrocious.

[VectorVictor]

"The GOP can add 10 million jobs and $15 Trillion to the US economy without spending a dime."

 

The pipeline could ultimately supply about a million barrels of Canadian oil to the US per day and 400,000 US jobs, most of them almost immediately.

 

As I have pointed out all along, the Keystone issue isn’t about the safety of a pipeline. Obama and enviro-whacko friends know that if they allow Canadian tar sands oil to be developed via the Keystone pipeline, that the US will also start to develop their own tar-sands and shale oil. The US contains well over 600 years of known reserves and that would allow the US to be a net exporter of oil. If that happens, the green economy ruse that the left has sponsored, already reeling from bankruptcies and cronyism, would collapse. It would show that there is no shortage of oil and “green” energy can not compete with fossil fuels.

The only thing left then for those bitter climate clingers would be the shoddy science of Global Something-or-Another.

 

And along the way, the U.S. would create at least 10 million new U.S. jobs, keeping around $500 billion per year here at home. Over twenty years that would be an additional $12.5 trillion in GDP even at a modest 2 percent growth rate. At 4 percent the numbers are closer to $15.5 trillion.

 

No cites of actual numbers--unlike the Cornell piece, that has actual citations (much of which is from KXL's and TransCanada's own paperwork), the numbers seem to come from the same sphincter place that spawned this:

 

 

Please note that the "editor" tries to make a BBC source cite look like the source for his numbers in the final paragraphs, but it's not--if you RTFA, those numbers aren't in the article.

[carlfense]

"The GOP can add 10 million jobs and $15 Trillion to the US economy without spending a dime."

 

The pipeline could ultimately supply about a million barrels of Canadian oil to the US per day and 400,000 US jobs, most of them almost immediately.

 

As I have pointed out all along, the Keystone issue isn’t about the safety of a pipeline. Obama and enviro-whacko friends know that if they allow Canadian tar sands oil to be developed via the Keystone pipeline, that the US will also start to develop their own tar-sands and shale oil. The US contains well over 600 years of known reserves and that would allow the US to be a net exporter of oil. If that happens, the green economy ruse that the left has sponsored, already reeling from bankruptcies and cronyism, would collapse. It would show that there is no shortage of oil and “green” energy can not compete with fossil fuels.

The only thing left then for those bitter climate clingers would be the shoddy science of Global Something-or-Another.

 

And along the way, the U.S. would create at least 10 million new U.S. jobs, keeping around $500 billion per year here at home. Over twenty years that would be an additional $12.5 trillion in GDP even at a modest 2 percent growth rate. At 4 percent the numbers are closer to $15.5 trillion.

 

No cites of actual numbers--unlike the Cornell piece, that has actual citations (much of which is from KXL's and TransCanada's own paperwork), the numbers seem to come from the same sphincter place that spawned this:

 

 

Please note that the "editor" tries to make a BBC source cite look like the source for his numbers in the final paragraphs, but it's not--if you RTFA, those numbers aren't in the article.

The US can save over $5 trillion by rejecting the Keystone XL application. http://www.keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov/clientsite/keystonexl.nsf?Open

 

(That number cannot be found anywhere in the link that I just provided but I trust that my barely literate readers won't check.)

[Excel]

I hope they build the thing, it'd make the perfect dividing line for our next civil war...which will be extremely bad ass.