3 REASONS WHY THE KEYSTONE PIPELINE SHOULD BE BUILT...

[Whirlaway]

From Reason TV..........

Few energy projects have inspired the level of vitriol surrounding the Keystone XL Pipeline, that would run 1,700 miles from Alberta, Canada through the United States to refineries on the Gulf of Mexico.

The oil sands of Alberta are estimated to hold 170 million 170 billon barrels of petroleum, the largest reservoir of black gold outside of Saudi Arabia.

Because the pipeline crosses an international boundary, President Barack Obama has the final say over whether to give the project a green light.

Here are three reasons to build the pipeline:

http://reason.com/blog/2013/02/17/3-...stone-xl-pipel

[Munchmasterman]

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

From Reason TV..........

Few energy projects have inspired the level of vitriol surrounding the Keystone XL Pipeline, that would run 1,700 miles from Alberta, Canada through the United States to refineries on the Gulf of Mexico.

The oil sands of Alberta are estimated to hold 170 million 170 billon barrels of petroleum, the largest reservoir of black gold outside of Saudi Arabia.

Because the pipeline crosses an international boundary, President Barack Obama has the final say over whether to give the project a green light.

Here are three reasons to build the pipeline:

http://reason.com/blog/2013/02/17/3-...stone-xl-pipel

I'll call your 3 and raise you 7.

10 Reasons Obama Rejecting the Keystone XL Was a Good Decision

10. The pipeline has received extremely little actual government oversight. “[T]he Department of State allowed a contractor with a financial arrangement with TransCanada, which seeks to build the Keystone XL pipeline, to conduct the Department’s environmental review mandated under federal law as part of its consideration of TransCanada’s proposed pipeline,” a 2011 investigation discovered. And as I mentioned in a long, November post on that investigation and other matters, “for years, the State Department’s Keystone XL review body was only one, junior-level staffer. This is a $7-billion-dollar project! One staffer?”
9. Oil pipelines leak. And this one could leak all over the U.S. “One tar sands pipeline operated by the same company behind the Keystone XL project experienced 35 leaks in the U.S. and Canada its first year of operation and had to be temporarily shut down by the U.S. Department of Transportation,” France Beinecke of the NRDC writes.
8. Did I mention that oil pipelines leak and are risky. Well, from someone who supports oil pipelines in general, an oil pipeline inspector and engineer, said this one should not be built. “Mike Klink is a former inspector for Bechtel, one of the major contractors working on TransCanada’s original Keystone pipeline, completed in 2010. Klink says he raised numerous concerns about shoddy materials and poor craftsmanship during construction of the pipeline, which brings tar sands crude from Canada to Midwestern refineries in the U.S. Instead of actually addressing the problems, Klink claims he was fired by Bechtel in retaliation…. Klink, who says he’s speaking as an engineer and not an environmentalist, has just published a scathing op-ed in the Lincoln Journal Star criticizing Keystone XL….’As an inspector, my job was to monitor the construction of the first Keystone pipeline. I oversaw construction at the pump stations that have been such a problem on that line, which has already spilled more than a dozen times. I am coming forward because my kids encouraged me to tell the truth about what was done and covered up…. Let’s be clear — I am an engineer; I am not telling you we shouldn’t build pipelines. We just should not build this one.’” (Much more from Klink via the links above.)
7. The oil isn’t even for the U.S.! “Here in the United States, oil companies trumpet false job claims and promise a secure supply of oil. But in the Canadian press, oil companies talk freely about using the pipeline to export oil to Asian markets and charge more money for the oil they do sell in the U.S.,” France Beinecke writes. “In Congressional testimony, TransCanada refused to support a condition that the oil in Keystone XL would be used in the United States…. Claims that the pipeline would have delivered a secure supply of oil to America were also wildly overblown. The Keystone XL pipeline would have been an export pipeline. By rerouting tar sands oil out of the Midwest and into the “Foreign Trade Zone” in Port Arthur, Texas, companies could ship it anywhere in the world. Indeed, companies get incentives to export from there.”
6. Jobs schmobs! While the oil industry and its bought politicians and media lie to us repeatedly by telling us that the pipeline would create tens of thousands of jobs, the company developing the pipeline, TransCanada, stated (when on record) that it would only create “hundreds” of permanent jobs. Meanwhile, the U.S. State Department had that number at 20. And, a thorough, independent analysis from researchers at Cornell said it could even cost the U.S. jobs in the long term!
5. We don’t create energy independence by focusing our efforts and money on further oil production. We get much more bang for the buck by putting all of that into clean energy vehicles and clean power options. Bottom line.
4. Obama is listening to and supporting citizens (i.e. doing his job). Over 10,000 people got off their couches and encircled the White House in November to oppose this project. Over 1,000 got arrested last summer in opposition to it. This tremendous show of concern and passion came about for a reason — the project was bad for the American people.
3. Republicans in congress and the oil industry tried to bully Obama into approving the pipeline without even adequately reviewing its environmental impacts (even sending a public email to him stating that rejecting the pipeline would result in “huge political consequences.”). That’s plain stupid (unless you know that a good review will result in pipeline rejection and all your money is on the pipeline going through). Standing up for the millions or even billions of people who rely on clean water and a livable climate by not rushing a full review is the right thing to do.
2. Tar sands development and the Keystone XL pipeline that would enable a ton of that was essentially “the fuse to the biggest carbon bomb on the planet.” Tar sands oil is 3 times worse for the global climate than conventional crude oil. Goodbye, livable climate, in other words.
1. The U.S. would get practically nothing from the project. On the other hand, it would face numerous risks and problems. Additionally, the world would suffer tremendously from it. In other words, all of the above.

http://planetsave.com/2012/01/18/10-reasons-obama-rejecting-the-keystone-xl-was-a-good-decision/

[JD Barleycorn]

10. The pipeline has received extremely little actual government oversight. You make that sound like a bad thing.“[T]he Department of State allowed a contractor with a financial arrangement with TransCanada, which seeks to build the Keystone XL pipeline, to conduct the Department’s environmental review mandated under federal law as part of its consideration of TransCanada’s proposed pipeline,” a 2011 investigation discovered. And as I mentioned in a long, November post on that investigation and other matters, “for years, the State Department’s Keystone XL review body was only one, junior-level staffer. This is a $7-billion-dollar project! One staffer?” You got this from somewhere. Where did you get this? The states where the pipeline is being built have done their own investigations and they approve. Remember the 10th amendment.
9. Oil pipelines leak. And this one could leak all over the U.S. “One tar sands pipeline operated by the same company behind the Keystone XL project experienced 35 leaks in the U.S. and Canada its first year of operation and had to be temporarily shut down by the U.S. Department of Transportation,” France Beinecke of the NRDC writes. Ships leak, trains leak, trucks leak. How bad were these leaks? You don't say. Why are you hiding that?
8. Did I mention that oil pipelines leak and are risky. Well, from someone who supports oil pipelines in general, an oil pipeline inspector and engineer, said this one should not be built. “Mike Klink is a former inspector for Bechtel, one of the major contractors working on TransCanada’s original Keystone pipeline, completed in 2010. Klink says he raised numerous concerns about shoddy materials and poor craftsmanship during construction of the pipeline, which brings tar sands crude from Canada to Midwestern refineries in the U.S. Instead of actually addressing the problems, Klink claims he was fired by Bechtel in retaliation…. Klink, who says he’s speaking as an engineer and not an environmentalist, has just published a scathing op-ed in the Lincoln Journal Star criticizing Keystone XL….’As an inspector, my job was to monitor the construction of the first Keystone pipeline. I oversaw construction at the pump stations that have been such a problem on that line, which has already spilled more than a dozen times. I am coming forward because my kids encouraged me to tell the truth about what was done and covered up…. Let’s be clear — I am an engineer; I am not telling you we shouldn’t build pipelines. We just should not build this one.’” (Much more from Klink via the links above.) You have served your own poison. This IS government job, to set a standard and if met then government gets out of the way. So you're saying that government has failed to set standards then.
7. The oil isn’t even for the U.S.! “Here in the United States, oil companies trumpet false job claims and promise a secure supply of oil. But in the Canadian press, oil companies talk freely about using the pipeline to export oil to Asian markets and charge more money for the oil they do sell in the U.S.,” France Beinecke writes. “In Congressional testimony, TransCanada refused to support a condition that the oil in Keystone XL would be used in the United States…. Claims that the pipeline would have delivered a secure supply of oil to America were also wildly overblown. The Keystone XL pipeline would have been an export pipeline. By rerouting tar sands oil out of the Midwest and into the “Foreign Trade Zone” in Port Arthur, Texas, companies could ship it anywhere in the world. Indeed, companies get incentives to export from there.” Yes, it is called the free market. The oil can be sold anywhere by the people who own it. You have a problem with that? We can buy it for less than some country who has to ship it. Take your socialism to another site.
6. Jobs schmobs! While the oil industry and its bought politicians and media lie to us repeatedly by telling us that the pipeline would create tens of thousands of jobs, the company developing the pipeline, TransCanada, stated (when on record) that it would only create “hundreds” of permanent jobs. Meanwhile, the U.S. State Department had that number at 20. And, a thorough, independent analysis from researchers at Cornell said it could even cost the U.S. jobs in the long term! That's right! Try to confuse the issue with half truths. Any and all construction projects create many more temporary jobs than permanent jobs. Common sense. Tell the people who would get permanent jobs that they don't deserve to have jobs.
5. We don’t create energy independence by focusing our efforts and money on further oil production. We get much more bang for the buck by putting all of that into clean energy vehicles and clean power options. Bottom line. Now we get to the fantasy. The country burns oil NOW and even the most optimistic experts think clean energy is still a couple of decades away. Why don't you stop breathing until we can perfect the artificial gill.
4. Obama is listening to and supporting citizens (i.e. doing his job). Over 10,000 people got off their couches and encircled the White House in November to oppose this project. Over 1,000 got arrested last summer in opposition to it. This tremendous show of concern and passion came about for a reason — the project was bad for the American people. 10,000? Is that all. How many were bought and paid for by a special interest like Big Environment. You laughed at the idea of over 1 million people opposing Obamacare and 26 states refusing to set up the mechanisms to run it. So much for the wishes of the majority.
3. Republicans in congress and the oil industry tried to bully Obama into approving the pipeline without even adequately reviewing its environmental impacts (even sending a public email to him stating that rejecting the pipeline would result in “huge political consequences.”). That’s plain stupid (unless you know that a good review will result in pipeline rejection and all your money is on the pipeline going through). Standing up for the millions or even billions of people who rely on clean water and a livable climate by not rushing a full review is the right thing to do. Billions? Billions? Going a little over the top aren't we? Where is your proof that clean water is endangered? Have you come out against fracking too?
2. Tar sands development and the Keystone XL pipeline that would enable a ton of that was essentially “the fuse to the biggest carbon bomb on the planet.” Tar sands oil is 3 times worse for the global climate than conventional crude oil. Goodbye, livable climate, in other words. Oil is oil, you really have to explain the rational behind this shit. Good luck with that.
1. The U.S. would get practically nothing from the project. On the other hand, it would face numerous risks and problems. Additionally, the world would suffer tremendously from it. In other words, all of the above. Proof! If the pipeline goes to the West coast then China benefits. If no one benefits as you claim then why is it being done and why would China participate? You must have the same agent as a certain Hollywood actress who just tweeted the same thing a couple of days ago.

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

10. The pipeline has received extremely little actual government oversight. You make that sound like a bad thing.“[T]he Department of State allowed a contractor with a financial arrangement with TransCanada, which seeks to build the Keystone XL pipeline, to conduct the Department’s environmental review mandated under federal law as part of its consideration of TransCanada’s proposed pipeline,” a 2011 investigation discovered. And as I mentioned in a long, November post on that investigation and other matters, “for years, the State Department’s Keystone XL review body was only one, junior-level staffer. This is a $7-billion-dollar project! One staffer?” You got this from somewhere. Where did you get this? The states where the pipeline is being built have done their own investigations and they approve. Remember the 10th amendment.
9. Oil pipelines leak. And this one could leak all over the U.S. “One tar sands pipeline operated by the same company behind the Keystone XL project experienced 35 leaks in the U.S. and Canada its first year of operation and had to be temporarily shut down by the U.S. Department of Transportation,” France Beinecke of the NRDC writes. Ships leak, trains leak, trucks leak. How bad were these leaks? You don't say. Why are you hiding that?
8. Did I mention that oil pipelines leak and are risky. Well, from someone who supports oil pipelines in general, an oil pipeline inspector and engineer, said this one should not be built. “Mike Klink is a former inspector for Bechtel, one of the major contractors working on TransCanada’s original Keystone pipeline, completed in 2010. Klink says he raised numerous concerns about shoddy materials and poor craftsmanship during construction of the pipeline, which brings tar sands crude from Canada to Midwestern refineries in the U.S. Instead of actually addressing the problems, Klink claims he was fired by Bechtel in retaliation…. Klink, who says he’s speaking as an engineer and not an environmentalist, has just published a scathing op-ed in the Lincoln Journal Star criticizing Keystone XL….’As an inspector, my job was to monitor the construction of the first Keystone pipeline. I oversaw construction at the pump stations that have been such a problem on that line, which has already spilled more than a dozen times. I am coming forward because my kids encouraged me to tell the truth about what was done and covered up…. Let’s be clear — I am an engineer; I am not telling you we shouldn’t build pipelines. We just should not build this one.’” (Much more from Klink via the links above.) You have served your own poison. This IS government job, to set a standard and if met then government gets out of the way. So you're saying that government has failed to set standards then.
7. The oil isn’t even for the U.S.! “Here in the United States, oil companies trumpet false job claims and promise a secure supply of oil. But in the Canadian press, oil companies talk freely about using the pipeline to export oil to Asian markets and charge more money for the oil they do sell in the U.S.,” France Beinecke writes. “In Congressional testimony, TransCanada refused to support a condition that the oil in Keystone XL would be used in the United States…. Claims that the pipeline would have delivered a secure supply of oil to America were also wildly overblown. The Keystone XL pipeline would have been an export pipeline. By rerouting tar sands oil out of the Midwest and into the “Foreign Trade Zone” in Port Arthur, Texas, companies could ship it anywhere in the world. Indeed, companies get incentives to export from there.” Yes, it is called the free market. The oil can be sold anywhere by the people who own it. You have a problem with that? We can buy it for less than some country who has to ship it. Take your socialism to another site.
6. Jobs schmobs! While the oil industry and its bought politicians and media lie to us repeatedly by telling us that the pipeline would create tens of thousands of jobs, the company developing the pipeline, TransCanada, stated (when on record) that it would only create “hundreds” of permanent jobs. Meanwhile, the U.S. State Department had that number at 20. And, a thorough, independent analysis from researchers at Cornell said it could even cost the U.S. jobs in the long term! That's right! Try to confuse the issue with half truths. Any and all construction projects create many more temporary jobs than permanent jobs. Common sense. Tell the people who would get permanent jobs that they don't deserve to have jobs.
5. We don’t create energy independence by focusing our efforts and money on further oil production. We get much more bang for the buck by putting all of that into clean energy vehicles and clean power options. Bottom line. Now we get to the fantasy. The country burns oil NOW and even the most optimistic experts think clean energy is still a couple of decades away. Why don't you stop breathing until we can perfect the artificial gill.
4. Obama is listening to and supporting citizens (i.e. doing his job). Over 10,000 people got off their couches and encircled the White House in November to oppose this project. Over 1,000 got arrested last summer in opposition to it. This tremendous show of concern and passion came about for a reason — the project was bad for the American people. 10,000? Is that all. How many were bought and paid for by a special interest like Big Environment. You laughed at the idea of over 1 million people opposing Obamacare and 26 states refusing to set up the mechanisms to run it. So much for the wishes of the majority.
3. Republicans in congress and the oil industry tried to bully Obama into approving the pipeline without even adequately reviewing its environmental impacts (even sending a public email to him stating that rejecting the pipeline would result in “huge political consequences.”). That’s plain stupid (unless you know that a good review will result in pipeline rejection and all your money is on the pipeline going through). Standing up for the millions or even billions of people who rely on clean water and a livable climate by not rushing a full review is the right thing to do. Billions? Billions? Going a little over the top aren't we? Where is your proof that clean water is endangered? Have you come out against fracking too?
2. Tar sands development and the Keystone XL pipeline that would enable a ton of that was essentially “the fuse to the biggest carbon bomb on the planet.” Tar sands oil is 3 times worse for the global climate than conventional crude oil. Goodbye, livable climate, in other words. Oil is oil, you really have to explain the rational behind this shit. Good luck with that.
1. The U.S. would get practically nothing from the project. On the other hand, it would face numerous risks and problems. Additionally, the world would suffer tremendously from it. In other words, all of the above. Proof! If the pipeline goes to the West coast then China benefits. If no one benefits as you claim then why is it being done and why would China participate? You must have the same agent as a certain Hollywood actress who just tweeted the same thing a couple of days ago.

I have to agree with JD on this Munch.

Most of the 10 reason posted above are absolute BS.

Especially the part about permanent vs. temporary workers. You know, they hired THOUSANDS of temporary construction workers to build the Verrazano Bridge in NY City. But now they only employ a few dozen permanent workers - toll collectors and maintenance guys. I guess we shouldn't have built it, huh?

[WTF]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Yes, it is called the free market. The oil can be sold anywhere by the people who own it. You have a problem with that? We can buy it for less than some country who has to ship it. Take your socialism to another site
.

I have a problem with the government taking land for private use that does not benifit but a few. That is called crony Cap. You don't have a problem with that?

Many folks in Neb , do.

If we are going to build a pipleline, then sell the gasoline to our citizens, not China's.

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by WTF

I have a problem with the government taking land for private use that does not benifit but a few. That is called crony Cap. You don't have a problem with that?

If we are going to build a pipleline, then sell the gasoline to our citizens, not China's.

The government takes land for the private use of railroad companies, too. Especially freight railroads. That's all private money there - no passengers, so no wide public benefit.

And those railroads bring products to ports and ship them to other countries. What do we do about this scandalous railroad situation? Shut them down? Force them to transport goods only for domestic consumption?

[Chica Chaser]

Obama has no say at all on whether its built or not, except for the 20 yards right up to the Canadian border. Its a states/counties issue, exactly as it should be. Its a private enterprise and no land will be "taken" by the government via imminent domain. They will purchase rights of way from the landowners, just like has been done with every railroad track forever.

[Guest123018-4]

The best reason is there is a US refinery that can process that type of oil located on the gulf coast. Normally, it would get the heavy oil from a communist country, Venezuela, which does not like the USofA. Canada on the other hand is generally rather indifferent to us and is happy to have access to quick, quality medical care that is much better than their own socialized system. In addition, the refinery is owned by a USofA company. I think that is all the reason we should need.

[timpage]

Every drop of that oil will go to Asia. Canadian oil piped through the US for export to China.

Remind me again what jobs this will create in the US after construction is complete? The people who clean up the spills from the pipeline?

[timpage]

Originally Posted by Chica Chaser

Obama has no say at all on whether its built or not, except for the 20 yards right up to the Canadian border. Its a states/counties issue, exactly as it should be. Its a private enterprise and no land will be "taken" by the government via imminent domain. They will purchase rights of way from the landowners, just like has been done with every railroad track forever.

Don't know about oil companies but railroads can, and do, take property via eminent domain-like statutory provisions. There are all kinds of hoops they have to jump through, but it happens.

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by timpage

Don't know about oil companies but railroads can, and do, take property via eminent domain-like statutory provisions. There are all kinds of hoops they have to jump through, but it happens.

It's eminent domain also. A pipeline is actually not different in kind than a railroad. Both are transportation means. A pipeline performs the same function as a freight line, but cheaper and with less pollution. That is why oil and gas move by pipeline, not by freight rail. A pipeline is MORE evironmentally friendly than above ground transport.

And it is irrelevant that the oil may go to Asia. The US still gets tax revenue from the operation of the pipeline. The Canadians let the US build a pipeline for Alaskan oil that goes through Canada also.

Take a look at this map of US-Canadian pipelines:

http://www.theodora.com/pipelines/ca...elines_map.jpg

and the list of US and Canadian pipelines on this page:

http://www.theodora.com/pipelines/canada_pipelines.html

Look at all of the EXISTING pipelines we have and then tell me again why we are even having this conversation?

The Keystone pipeline will join a pre-existing grid of tens of thousands of miles of US pipeline:




So, why am I supposed to think that Keystone is some unique environmental threat?

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by timpage

Remind me again what jobs this will create in the US after construction is complete? The people who clean up the spills from the pipeline?

Asked and answered above. in #4. Maintenance workers and operating workers are still needed. Just like on the Verrazano Bridge after it was completed. There are intermediate pump stations, valve and other safety equipment all along the way.

And - even without the jobs - we still collect tax revenue from it, which funds the operations of oh-so-precious government. Surely a liberal will salivate at that?

[timpage]

I thought the oil would be piped directly to Port Arthur, Texas....a tax-free Foreign Trade Zone. That's the whole point for big oil. They bypass US taxes, consumers and refineries (other than the one in the Foreign Trade Zone in Port Arthur) and sell the end-product at higher prices in Asia.

And, I don't know that it does pose a threat to the environment. Frankly, those issues bore the shit outta me. I've read that this type of pipeline is more prone to leaks than any other type of pipe. I dunno.

Regarding jobs.....sounds like a few hundred at best.

[JD Barleycorn]

Why are taxes so holy to you Timmie.

[Whirlaway]

If this was a pipeline for illegals to run around the country...........the left would be screaming yes, yes, yes, si', si', si'................

The American left opposes almost everything that makes America a better place and support almost everything that makes it worse !