Keystone Pipeline

[Murky]

“Contrary to the claims of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, American Petroleum Institute and other pipeline advocates who threaten political retaliation if the pipeline is not approved, Keystone XL would not deliver on jobs, energy, safety or economic competitiveness,” said ASBC Executive Director David Levine.

• Most of the oil that Keystone XL would carry from Canada to the Gulf Coast of Texas is destined for export, and the jobs the pipeline would create would be just as fleeting. The State Department estimated the pipeline construction workforce at 5,000 to 6,000 workers and as the Vice President of Keystone Pipeline for TransCanada told CNN, long-term jobs would be in the “hundreds, certainly not in the thousands.”
• Keystone would deliver far less bang for the buck when it comes to job creation than alternative energy. A dollar of spending in clean energy generates three times as many jobs as a dollar spent on oil and gas, according to U.S. Commerce Department data.
• Keystone is a boondoggle for oil companies, not an investment in our nation’s economic competitiveness. Keystone will leave us even further behind Germany, China and other countries that are dominating the rapidly growing global clean technology market.
• Keystone would increase the kind of catastrophic environmental risk the World Economic Forum warns about in its just released Global Risks 2012. Keystone oil will be extracted from tar sands and its carbon emissions are 82% greater than the average crude refined in the United States, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. Keystone will increase carbon emissions and environmental risk. The pipeline would threaten the Ogallala aquifer, a large and irreplaceable supply of drinking water and irrigation in the Great Plains.

“Keystone is a sneak attack on American’s wallets,” said Frank Knapp, Vice Chairman of ASBC and CEO of the South Carolina Small Business Chamber of Commerce.” Its real aim is to import oil from Canada, refine it, and then export it to foreign buyers. For most businesses and consumers in the mid-west, the pipeline will serve up higher energy prices and higher food prices, since food prices include the price of energy and oil-based fertilizer needed to grow crops. That’s the last thing we need for real economic recovery.”
“The Keystone pipeline endangers the Ogallala aquifer -- the only clean and reliable water source for drinking and agriculture for much of the Great Plains," said Fran Teplitz, ASBC board member. "If this supply were contaminated by an oil spill, the costs to the public and business
would be incalculable, and some of America's most productive farmland would be lost.”
“Keystone makes no economic sense for America,” said ASBC co-founder and Director David
Brodwin. “Once we take into account the true cost of oil including subsidies, environmental
damage, and military costs, oil is far more expensive than the alternatives. The best thing we can
do for the American economy and for American businesses as a whole is to wean ourselves from
oil as quickly as possible.”

Source
http://www.asbcouncil.org/uploads/ASBCPublic_RelationstigercommRevised_Keystone_v4_accepted.pdf

 

[Cutlass]

I don't think you really understand how the oil market works...

I tried to explain to you how the oil markets work. You weren't interested.

 

[Patroklos]

More to the point, the pipeline was supposedly capable of moving as much oil as we import from Saudi Arabia, meaning we could tell the Saudis to shove it and still walk away even-handed supply-wise.

Exactly. Its not just a geographic location problem, but who we deal with at those far off geographic locations.

And again, thats not going to change what we pay for a global commodity, but it frees up resources from other spheres. Resources to be used for a myraid other things, one of which would be developing alternatives.

Win win win, who could possibly not want this?

And this is an important point. The article HistoryBuff posted mentions that the existing part of the Trans-Canada pipeline has been leaky, but it never mentions how big, or how leaky an oil pipeline typically is, or how all of that compares to the net loss of seaborne oil between spills and fuel used to power the tankers.

And even if a pipeline bursts and spills just as much oil (I can't see how this could possibly be the case outside deliberate military action, there are generally cut off valves every few miles), that spill is far more locallized than a spill at sea of the same quantity. A sea spill is going to devestate hundreds to thousands of miles of coast line, you might screw up a square mile with a ground spill. Even on top of an aquifer, the majority will still be held on the surface and easily cleaned up.

The argument against this is that getting and using Tar Sands oil produces an incredible amount of pollution, much larger than traditional petroleum production and refinement. So the question is, do we want to encourage that type of sourcing at a time that we're supposed to be moving towards cleaner types of energy, including cleaner ways of producing and using oil products?

Eh, we are talking about different kinds of pollution, conflaiting #3 and #4, I highly doubt pumping tar sands produce as much GHGs as several thousand mega tankers plowing the seas. If you are more concerned about AGW than run of the mill pollution, it makes sense to produce more of one to reduce the other (obviously the best solution is to reduce both).

Sort of like nuclear power, I find it far more acceptable to utterly pollute a small corner of Nevada with extremely harmful nuclear waste then spread a far larger quantity of pollution less densly everywhere via coal plants.

Reality makes us have to make such choices, appealing to future tech that doesn't exist in the here in now is pointless.

 

[downtown]

I think Pat just convinced me.

 

[NBAfan]

I don't get how this pipeline is environmentally dangerous. Oil pipelines are the safest way to transport oil. Besides, we already have 1000s of them built, what's one more?

 

[shadowplay]

to feed the hatred Canadians have for all things American.

Uh... what?

 

[kochman]

Source
http://www.asbcouncil.org/uploads/ASBCPublic_RelationstigercommRevised_Keystone_v4_accepted.pdf

Is this just to broaden our scope of information?

Again, who is arguing that we should just stay with oil and not try to get off it? I haven't seen anyone on this board say that.

 

[illram]

According to this paper and the graph on page 4, it looks like even if you eliminate transportation, extraction is big enough to still outweigh conventional oil production as far as GHG emissions goes. I.e., eliminating transportation from the equation does not make tar sands equal or more environmentally friendly than the status quo.

Wasn't this oil just going to be loaded onto tankers and shipped overseas anyway?

 

[Eat_Up_Martha]

According to this paper and the graph on page 4, it looks like even if you eliminate transportation, extraction is big enough to still outweigh conventional oil production as far as GHG emissions goes. I.e., eliminating transportation from the equation does not make tar sands equal or more environmentally friendly than the status quo.

Wasn't this oil just going to be loaded onto tankers and shipped overseas anyway?

Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding, but considering that the Keystone XL was between Canada and the States, shouldn't the transportation costs be considerably less than importing from the Middle East, Venezuela, or Nigeria?

 

[Murky]

Is this just to broaden our scope of information?

Again, who is arguing that we should just stay with oil and not try to get off it? I haven't seen anyone on this board say that.

If you read, understand and agree with the statement from a respected organization, why would you advocate for such a bad deal?

 

[illram]

Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding, but considering that the Keystone XL was between Canada and the States, shouldn't the transportation costs be considerably less than importing from the Middle East, Venezuela, or Nigeria?

They should be. I am still a little confused though as to exactly where the oil from this pipeline is going. I.e., it sounds like it was just going to be shipped away anyway. As to costs to consumer, I have no idea, I was just looking for evidence re: the GHG emissions.

 

[Eat_Up_Martha]

They should be. I am still a little confused though as to exactly where the oil from this pipeline is going. I.e., it sounds like it was just going to be shipped away anyway. As to costs to consumer, I have no idea, I was just looking for evidence re: the GHG emissions.

I checked it out on wikipedia (glad the blackout's over, I wouldn't have survived another day) and it said that from extraction to your car the whole process results in about 5-15% more GHG than 'conventional' sources. The wikipedia source is a Reuter's article, whose own source I haven't found yet.

 

[CaptainF]

Another terrible idea, courtesy of U.S. oil junkies.

 

[emzie]

I don't get how this pipeline is environmentally dangerous. Oil pipelines are the safest way to transport oil. Besides, we already have 1000s of them built, what's one more?

The pipeline originally was to go through an area of the country where the water table is very close to the surface, and actually forms temporary lakes occasionally. So where an oil spill might normally be easily cleaned up since it's sitting on the ground, in the Sandhills, it could contaminate a very large aquifer.

 

[kochman]

If you read, understand and agree with the statement from a respected organization, why would you advocate for such a bad deal?

UNTIL we have the other options AVAILABLE to us all, we need a band aid for the IMMEDIATE need.
Some of that need is jobs (I'll gladly take 100 jobs for Americans versus 0... that's 100 families that are able to support themselves and not live in poverty)... some is stop sending money to the ME...

If we get green jobs really going, both of those things will be achieved, and I will be happy. Until then, I'll take the 50% solution of jobs/money, until green is viable.

It's not going to be an overnight process... I wish Obama would've followed through on his pledge of a "Manhattan Project" for alternative fuel... instead it's been crony capitalism (funding green energy at least, but not successful business models... it needs to be green AND successful).

The pipeline originally was to go through an area of the country where the water table is very close to the surface, and actually forms temporary lakes occasionally. So where an oil spill might normally be easily cleaned up since it's sitting on the ground, in the Sandhills, it could contaminate a very large aquifer.

That's where environmentalists were on the money, and hence, they are changing the route.

 

[El_Machinae]

I'm anti-Keystone pipeline, but only for nationalistic (Canadian) reasons. I think the US government is nuts for trying to refuse it. I can understand demanding greater environmental security for the pipeline (I have no idea how safe the proposed pipeline would be once it crosses the border), but demands for safety have an upper limit of reasonableness.

 

[History_Buff]

They should be. I am still a little confused though as to exactly where the oil from this pipeline is going. I.e., it sounds like it was just going to be shipped away anyway. As to costs to consumer, I have no idea, I was just looking for evidence re: the GHG emissions.

Exactly. Trust me, Keystone XL is not for shipping oil to the United States. It's for shipping oil to anywhere but the United States.

Right now, all of the pipelines from the oil sands run to the United States. We already export some 90% of our oil to the US. Because of that, US buyers can almost dictate a price for that oil. Oil companies here routinely complain that we're getting far below what we could.

Hence the desire for Keystone XL and Northern Gateway. This would give tar sands oil a direct connection to major maritime hubs, where we could sell it to whomever we pleased, at a higher price. As in, if either of those get built, America will likely receive less oil, and pay more for it.

I'm anti-Keystone pipeline, but only for nationalistic (Canadian) reasons. I think the US government is nuts for trying to refuse it. I can understand demanding greater environmental security for the pipeline (I have no idea how safe the proposed pipeline would be once it crosses the border), but demands for safety have an upper limit of reasonableness.

If you're a nationalist when it comes to oil, why not support the development of upgrading and refining capability here at home?

 

[illram]

Exactly. Trust me, Keystone XL is not for shipping oil to the United States. It's for shipping oil to anywhere but the United States.

Right now, all of the pipelines from the oil sands run to the United States. We already export some 90% of our oil to the US. Because of that, US buyers can almost dictate a price for that oil. Oil companies here routinely complain that we're getting far below what we could.

Hence the desire for Keystone XL and Northern Gateway. This would give tar sands oil a direct connection to major maritime hubs, where we could sell it to whomever we pleased, at a higher price. As in, if either of those get built, America will likely receive less oil, and pay more for it.

Thanks, now I understand why it would end up costing us more. I didn't get that part. (Admittedly I am not really looking into this too much.) So if it will not lower gas prices, if it will be an environmental hazard to an aquifer, if it will not actually be for US consumption but rather as a way for Canada to finally sell oil to someone other than the US, and if it will in sum add to total GHG emissions (even taking into account tanker traffic, which is null anyway since this will be shipped on tankers regardless), I fail to see how it is nuts for the US to not agree to it...? Other than job creation, which does not seem like too big of an increase and on the balance not worth it with these other things considered.

 

[El_Machinae]

If you're a nationalist when it comes to oil, why not support the development of upgrading and refining capability here at home?

I very much do support that.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Exactly. Trust me, Keystone XL is not for shipping oil to the United States. It's for shipping oil to anywhere but the United States.

Right now, all of the pipelines from the oil sands run to the United States. We already export some 90% of our oil to the US. Because of that, US buyers can almost dictate a price for that oil. Oil companies here routinely complain that we're getting far below what we could.

Hence the desire for Keystone XL and Northern Gateway. This would give tar sands oil a direct connection to major maritime hubs, where we could sell it to whomever we pleased, at a higher price. As in, if either of those get built, America will likely receive less oil, and pay more for it.

When I realized this is when I changed my mind. If it was coming to the US, then I would support it wholeheartedly. But it's not, so screw it. Obama did us right by this.