Keystone Pipeline

[ZRod]

You realize we will likely see none of the oil here in the US that is transported through the XL line right?

 

If you sit dow  to weigh the pros and cons of XL, they pretty much tell you it never should have been allowed here in the US. 90% of the pros that were given were propaganda and outright lies by Trans Canada.

[Danny Bateman]

On 11/19/2017 at 9:04 AM, ZRod said:

You realize we will likely see none of the oil here in the US that is transported through the XL line right?

 

If you sit dow  to weigh the pros and cons of XL, they pretty much tell you it never should have been allowed here in the US. 90% of the pros that were given were propaganda and outright lies by Trans Canada.

 

When you strip down all the noise around the issue, it just doesn't make a lot of sense on its face. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong.

 

We're going to build a gigantic pipeline across our country that allows for the pumping of Canadian oil to the Gulf of Mexico. Upon more research, I didn't realize it also rerouted to Illinois. Still, what's the purpose of this? We get more crude oil to refineries so we can continue our heavy reliance on fossil fuels while corporate oil/gas overlords make a quick buck? I don't see how it seriously benefits the U.S. unless you accept as a prerequisite that we should rely on fossil fuels to juice our economy, which I think is bunk.

 

I'm sure lots of folks are either rah-rah pipeline or ambivalent either way, UNTIL we get a spill that screws up our local environment. Hopefully it doesn't get into the aquifer, because that's a bell we can't unring and it would affect lots of people outside of Nebraska. What a mess that would be. I have zero faith that Ricketts is about to stand in the way of expanding the pipeline, though. Guy was an early adopter into the Trump cult and his decisions will mostly roll down from the top.

Edited November 21, 2017 by dudeguyy

[funhusker]

3 hours ago, GBR0988 said:

 

Humans and their ingenuity are forced to clean up your garbage... Are you going to stop throwing things away or know this is how modern life works and trust it to be dealt with?  

 

I guess we wouldn’t be having this conversation if there were no pipelines. Is that what you want?

I pay for my garbage and recycling service.  Thank you very much!  TransCanada doesn't have to pay for theirs.

 

If the risk of a garbage truck turning over caused millions to lose drinking water, I may reconsider my methods....

 

What the heck: yes, I want no pipelines.  What would that give us?  Stronger trucking unions, stronger businesses in communities along the interstate, railroad jobs, and a reason to try to find more efficient uses for the expensive fuel?  What if we didn't have pipelines?

 

Edited November 19, 2017 by funhusker

[Fru]

http://journalstar.com/news/state-and-regional/nebraska/nebraska-ok-s-keystone-xl-pipeline-but-not-its-preferred/article_22dfecd0-1cca-52a1-a076-fd859f875a9b.html#tracking-source=home-latest-1

 

I've always wanted more tar sand oil in my drinking water. 

[Danny Bateman]

This line from the Politico piece about this blew my mind:

 

Quote

The approval in Nebraska comes as TransCanada, the company seeking to build the project, adds new crews to its clean-up operations in South Dakota, where the original Keystone Pipeline ruptured last week and released 210,000 gallons of oil. But Nebraska law bars the the regulators from considering spills or pipeline safety in its decision-making process.

 

WTF?!?! Are we that backwards?

 

[BigRedBuster]

I still to this day don't believe this is being built to benefit the US.

 

I completely understand that we need pipelines to supply energy and fuel.  We need to hold these companies accountable for any contamination that is caused by accidents.

 

But....I firmly believe this pipeline is nothing more than to get Canadian oil to the gulf coast to be exported.  This is nothing more than a foreign country using eminent domain to take land away from Americans.  Then, it's American land owners who are stuck with the pipeline for eternity.

My feelings towards this would have been totally different if it was a pipeline to a refinery in North Dakota or Wyoming...etc.

[BigRedBuster]

 

[RedDenver]

On 11/12/2016 at 4:26 PM, Stumpy1 said:

I have worked in the pipeline business for over 10 years and have witnessed more tanker truck spills and train wrecks then I have pipeline leaks.

 

According to Hazmat, who we work with, there is 10 tanker wrecks and a train wreck to every pipeline leak. Just to give you an idea on gallons. A tanker will haul anywhere from 7800 - 10,000 gallons depending on the product. A train that is fully loaded will carry an average of 250,000 gallons. It still doesn't make it okay but people tend to give pipelines a bad rap when in reality, it is the safest mode of transportation for petroleum products.

 

On 11/12/2016 at 7:26 PM, HuskerNation1 said:

 

Great points Stumpy. There have been many studies on this initiative that show it will have little impact on the environment. Here is just one of those studies.

 

http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2014/01/31/22524683-report-keystone-pipeline-would-have-minimal-environmental-impact?lite

These posts continue to not age well:

Pipeline spill in South Dakota twice as big as first thought

Quote

 

A crude oil spill from the Keystone Pipeline in South Dakota last November has turned out to be nearly twice as big as first reported.

 

Around 407,000 gallons spilled onto farmland when the pipeline broke near Amherst in Marshall County on Nov. 16, a spokeswoman for pipeline owner TransCanada Corp., told the Aberdeen American News. TransCanada had originally put the spill at 210,000 gallons.

 

 

[knapplc]

It's been a few months on this. New news. 

 

Federal judge blocks Keystone XL pipeline, saying Trump administration review ignored ‘inconvenient’ climate change facts

 

It was a major defeat for Trump, who attacked the Obama administration for stopping the project in the face of protests and an environmental impact study. Trump signed an executive order two days into his presidency setting in motion a course reversal on the Keystone XL pipeline, as well as another major pipeline, Dakota Access.

 

The ruling highlights a broader legal vulnerability in the Trump administration’s push to roll back Obama-era environmental protections. Since Trump took office, federal courts have found repeatedly that his agencies have short-circuited the regulatory process in areas ranging from water protections to chemical plant safety operations. Robust environmental and administrative procedure laws, many dating back to the 1970s, have given the administration’s opponents plenty of legal ammunition.

 

Thursday’s decision does not permanently block a federal permit for Keystone XL, a project of the Calgary-based firm TransCanada. It requires the administration to conduct a more complete review of potential adverse impacts related to climate change, cultural resources and endangered species. The court basically ordered a do-over.

 

In a 54-page opinion, Morris hit the administration with a familiar charge that it disregarded facts, facts established by experts during the Obama administration about “climate-related impacts” from Keystone XL. The Trump administration claimed, with no supporting information, that those impacts “would prove inconsequential,” wrote Morris. The State Department “simply discarded prior factual findings related to climate change to support its course reversal.”