February 3: Nationwide vigils against Keystone XL

[White Eagle]

The other day across the Nation there were protests about the Keystone XL pipeline. Here are some pictures of the cities involved. Also is a petition to Obama to reject the Pipeline.

https://content.sierraclub.org/beyondoil/content/keystone-xl-vigils

February 3: Nationwide vigils against Keystone XL

On Friday, January 31, the State Department released its long-awaited final environmental impact assessment of the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline. The review wisely walked away from its earlier contention that Keystone XL would have ‘no significant impact’ on climate disruption.

 

[Alnitak]

At the same time, oil companies are going to get their oil where they want it to go. That means railroads and trucks, and what do you know, there have been multiple natural and human disasters over the past year involving both. Maybe the Keystone pipeline is a necessary evil after all.

 

[frankfrank]

^ You beat me to it. I was going to say that "I'm torn about the pipeline" because it otherwise would go on trains, and many of us know what happened in Lac-Megantic [Quebec] a few months ago.

I also see that the pipeline was routed a little to the east of its original route in the northern Plains - was that done to keep it from being entirely atop the Ogalalla Aquifer in that region? If so, that is certainly an improvement.

 

[Benvolio]

No doubt the protestors drove their cars to the protest site. They will continue to buy fossil fuels until a feasible substitute is found. But we will continue to import it from other countries.

 

[White Eagle]

At the same time, oil companies are going to get their oil where they want it to go. That means railroads and trucks, and what do you know, there have been multiple natural and human disasters over the past year involving both. Maybe the Keystone pipeline is a necessary evil after all.

My problem with it is the company doing the PL has a history of spills. If it spills here then there goes the drinking water. Look at WV and it is still messed up.

 

[Orlandude]

The only issue I have with the pipeline are the lies being perpetrated in an effort to get it approved.

1. The pipeline will NOT create jobs. All the bluster that it will is simply politicians bloviating to appease the oil corporates.
Work on the pipeline will require skilled workers from the oil industry, not the average person. In that regard, it will benefit oil industry employees who are already working and will be re-assigned to the pipeline.

2. The pipeline will NOT give us more gasoline and lower gas prices.
We are already EXPORTING more oil now than in the history of the nation. The problem is not the need for oil, the problem is the need for refineries, which oil companies have consistently balked at building. So we export the oil to those who have refineries and pay to bring it back here as gasoline. Ridiculous. Gasoline should not be $3.00-$4.00/gallon.

 

[Benvolio]

Oil companies do not balk at building refineries. It involves so many regulatory and environmental hurdles and so much opposition from environmental fanatics --the same people protesting the pipeline--that oil companies do not even try.

 

[nycguydowntown]

I'm for the pipeline as it doesn't go thru my backyard lol---and I'm pretty sure Obama will approve it because like most dem presidents he has to choose his battles. The country is way behind where it should be on so many things and that's the way this country has always been. If you know your history the Dept of Energy was formed by a future thinking dem pres who wanted the department to come up with all kinds of energy so we would never go to war for oil---we saw how that turned out--because as soon as Reagan got in he turned it into the Dept of oil---and republicans have controlled one thing or another ever since--and so it has been--oil now and oil forever, you know dig dig dig---Obama has changed this to diversify our energy needs and did a great job of it--but bottom line--we still need OIL---and other fossil fuels for many years to come.

 

[TX-Beau]

I don't really have a problem with pipelines. I have a problem with what they represent. When you come down to it, I'd rather compromise here than on something else - no matter how much screaming the left (whom I agree with in principle, if not in practice in this case) is going to do.

I might feel differently if not building the pipeline would actually force us to use alternative energy sources, but that's not the case, so, let them build the pipeline and let's go draw lines in the sand over something else.

 

[Benvolio]

The pipeline and fracking will free us from dependence on Middle Eastern sources.

 

[TX-Beau]

We aren't dependent on Middle Eastern Sources.

 

[chrisrobin]

The only issue I have with the pipeline are the lies being perpetrated in an effort to get it approved.

1. The pipeline will NOT create jobs.

Wrong. I heard on my radio this morning that the Keystone Pipeline will create 35 jobs!

 

[Alnitak]

The pipeline and fracking will free us from dependence on Middle Eastern sources.

Obama's energy and efficiency policies have reduced foreign imports to 40% of consumption and that number is shrinking.

Just 10% of oil consumed in the United States comes from the Middle East, three quarters of that comes from Saudi Arabia.

 

[chrisrobin]

We aren't dependent on Middle Eastern Sources.

QFT. Our number one export is crude.

 

[frankfrank]

2. The pipeline will NOT give us more gasoline and lower gas prices.
We are already EXPORTING more oil now than in the history of the nation. The problem is not the need for oil, the problem is the need for refineries, which oil companies have consistently balked at building. So we export the oil to those who have refineries and pay to bring it back here as gasoline. Ridiculous. Gasoline should not be $3.00-$4.00/gallon.

That's always been a contradiction in my mind. The more that we export, we have to "turn around" and IMPORT from elsewhere to maintain our consumption. Why should we be exporting any at all? Keeping more here would mean not having to import as much.

Seems like such a waste to me, using the energy as well, of thousands of ships exporting oil to China which could stay here, then in turn using MORE energy to power thousands more ships bringing oil to the US only to replenish the shortfall we've introduced in the first place.

Wrong. I heard on my radio this morning that the Keystone Pipeline will create 35 jobs!

There will be a lot of jobs - temporary ones. Once the pipeline has been built, perhaps it can be done with 35 permanent jobs. However, if refineries are being built to process the product before it leaves, those will be additional permanent jobs.

QFT. Our number one export is crude.

And the Pipeline has nothing to do with "SELF SUFFICIENCY" on oil production. After all, even if *none* of the product was leaving the United States (as it indeed will, being put on ships that will traverse the Panama Canal to China, etc.), none of this would make us any more self-sufficient, because it is NOT being initially mined/pumped/etc. in the United States. It's CANADIAN oil and, therefore, is as much an import as what comes from foreign deserts.

 

[Zu-Mendel]

If Canada wants to sell their oil on the open market they can damn well transport it across their own territory. The USA gets nothing out of this pipeline other than the ecological risk of spills for the sake of facilitating multinational oil corporation's profits.

Nobody here would authorize private corporations to store dangerous chemicals in their homes without compensation, so why are the GOP crusading to subject Middle America to the risk of oil spills so foreign corporations with no allegiance to this country can make a buck?

 

[TX-Beau]

There is no completely safe way to transport crude, and yet it will be transported, so that argument is moot.

There are many corporations authorized to store hazardous materials in proximity to homes, just ask West Virginia, so I'm not sure where you're going with that either.

If you want to argue in favor of tighter regulation - I agree, but that isn't going to happen without accepting that there is no risk free way we know of to be an industrialized nation. Tighten as much as we can, but we also have to accept that we can't tighten to the point of strangulation. We could just ban all crude oil and refineries and be very very righteous, but what would the cost be for that self satisfaction?

We have to balance ourselves to a way out, removing dependence on fossil fuels must be our goal, but we have to plan our path there with some degree of reality in mind.

 

[hotatlboi]

We are already EXPORTING more oil now than in the history of the nation. The problem is not the need for oil, the problem is the need for refineries, which oil companies have consistently balked at building. So we export the oil to those who have refineries and pay to bring it back here as gasoline. Ridiculous. Gasoline should not be $3.00-$4.00/gallon.

You have it entirely backward. We do not export crude, that is actually banned.
http://www.npr.org/2014/02/01/268942696/a-global-bathtub-rethinking-the-u-s-oil-export-ban

And we have some of the best refining capacity in the world. And we export a lot of refined petroleum products to countries with less. We are in fact second only to Russia in refined petroleum exports.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2247rank.html

- - - Updated - - -

QFT. Our number one export is crude.

False, we do not export crude.

 

[frankfrank]

If Canada wants to sell their oil on the open market they can damn well transport it across their own territory.

Not gonna happen, though. Canada is actually cutting off her nose to spite her face...because they COULD have the refineries on THEIR soil, providing the jobs that will instead be created in Texas. (The hardware of transporting the crude via the pipeline will provide few jobs once the construction is finished, but there will be plenty of jobs at the end of the pipeline where the raw product is expelled.)

Furthermore, if much of the oil is going to Asia, wouldn't shipping from Vancouver Island refineries cut about 6,000 to 10,000 km from the distance required? Seems like a major energy inefficiency there, because the amount of energy of sending tankers and barges thousands of extra miles through water is not trivial.

Of course, Canadians as people in the U. S. also, often have a NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) mindset.

 

[Kulindahr]

At the same time, oil companies are going to get their oil where they want it to go. That means railroads and trucks, and what do you know, there have been multiple natural and human disasters over the past year involving both. Maybe the Keystone pipeline is a necessary evil after all.

Putting that sludge in trucks that will have to travel on substandard bridges because no politician will fight for our infrastructure will kill people. The pipeline could use some serious safety improvements, but even as proposed it will be far safer.