Why Obama is right about the Keystone XL pipeline project

[Odelay]

Check out the problems encountered so far, in this article: http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/aswift/the_first_keystone_tar_sands_p.html

Santorum and Romney are demagouging on this issue saying that the Obama administration is against this project. That is demonstrably false when you look at the comments on record. From Obama, to Clinton to Chu, they've all said that they are very interested in this project but that it has to meet certain design standards and address concerns of the states that it will be built through. This article demonstrates why we need to put the brakes on this until we have a good design and construction and operating safeguards, in place.

I'm a Civil Engineer by education so big projects like this always intrigue me. Done right, this could be a good deal. On the other hand, refining tar sands oil has the potential of being very dirty. I really like Chu as energy secretary. He's smart and pragmatic. He's saying tar sands can be refined and limit the pollutants, but the technology to limit pollution has to catch up. That's yet another reason why delaying the construction of this pipeline makes sense. It allows engineers to do further research and further refinements to refining technology.

Seriously, I'm for the Keystone project, while a lot of liberals don't want to touch tar sands at all. But I really appreciate the pragmatic approach of Obama and Stephen Chu.

[trish]

Thanks, Odelay, for the link.

My major concern witht the current proposal is the pipeline’s route through through the Ogallala Aquifer. The aquifer is part of an emmense permeable sand aquifer system known as the High Plains Aquifer which supplies Nebraska, North Dakota down to New Mexico and Texas. The Ogallala is the major source of water for much of Nebraska. The importance of this aquifer and Trans Canada’s poor record of preventing the corrosive tar sands crude from leaking (12 last year) with this sort of high pressure pipeline give me serious pause. I’m not against the pipeline per se, but the route needs to be carefully considered. I’m well aware that there will be objections to almost any route. But fresh water is our most valuable resource and (imo) needs to be protected.

An issue that other environmentalists raise is the very size of the tar sands. It is said the tar sands are as large as the Saudi wells. Releasing the fossil carbon dioxide from the Canadian tar sand reserves will nearly double the amount already added since we started burning Middle Eastern oil. I’m not sure by what measure the two reserves are being compared. Moreover, not utilizing the tar sands is (imo) politically unfeasible. They are too tempting to be left alone.

[Stavros]

Odelay, thanks for the link. Because pipeline technology has been so remarkable at coping with Cold Regions (North Slope of Alaska) and pulverising depths at deep water (the Mardi Gras complex lies in depths of between 4,300 and 7,200 feet in the Gulf of Mexico where the water presure can reach 3,245 pounds per square inch) I am surprised the article you linked records so many accidents/spills at such an early stage of what should be a prestigious engineering achievement.

It suggest that caution is definitely the key word and that the project should be delayed. Again, if you look at the Trans-Alaska Pipeline, you find that oil was declared by Arco in 1968 and BP in 1969, but the passing of the EPA in 1970 enabled the environmental lobby to take the pipeline consortium to court again and again over the imposition of environmental stipulations -and weren't able to even build the pipeline until 1975, first oil reaching Valdez in 1977, by which time the price of oil had more than doubled -it then quadrupled by the time of the revolution in Iran in 1979.

The money is therefore not the issue, Canada produces a million barrels of the stuff every day -today Brent was trading at $119.83 a barrel.

The article linked here argues that the geology of the Ogallala aquifer does not conflict with the pipeline route; that the volume of jobs created by the pipeline is exaggerated; that both oil sands extraction and the use of refined oil sands crude increases carbon emissions, but that with the oil price exceeding the production price the business case is as it were, slam dunk.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=13946

The oil companies were made to wait and pay in the 1970s, they still made ridiculous profits -at one time in the early 1980s Sohio was making $600m a month from Prudhoe Bay -no need to rush this, and again, the engineering skills are there to make this a prestige project. Its only when the companies cut costs that problems take place, that's the reason why the tired North Slope has been leaking.

In the long term, it still makes sense to diversify the sources of energy and not be obsessed with oil.

[trish]

Thanks for the link, Stavros. So according to the article 80% of the Ogallala lies to the west and hydrologically uphill of the proposed pipeline. That doesn't quite put my reticence to rest. Am I to conclude 20% of the aquifer lies to the east and downhill of the pipeline? Once infused with the toxins of a spill won't osmotic pressures and ordinary diffusion push it through the entire aquifer against the grade? I could use a civil engineer about now.

[Stavros]

To which there must be engineering solutions -does all of the pipeline need to be underground, for example? The BTC pipeline varies in its course from Baku to Ceyhan above and below ground. Another solution, also in the article, is to adopt the Canadian route to the sea, and transport the stuff by tanker to the Gulf, the point being that a delay until these issues are resolved is the sensible option.

[onmyknees]

Check out the problems encountered so far, in this article: http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/aswift/the_first_keystone_tar_sands_p.html

Santorum and Romney are demagouging on this issue saying that the Obama administration is against this project. That is demonstrably false when you look at the comments on record. From Obama, to Clinton to Chu, they've all said that they are very interested in this project but that it has to meet certain design standards and address concerns of the states that it will be built through. This article demonstrates why we need to put the brakes on this until we have a good design and construction and operating safeguards, in place.

I'm a Civil Engineer by education so big projects like this always intrigue me. Done right, this could be a good deal. On the other hand, refining tar sands oil has the potential of being very dirty. I really like Chu as energy secretary. He's smart and pragmatic. He's saying tar sands can be refined and limit the pollutants, but the technology to limit pollution has to catch up. That's yet another reason why delaying the construction of this pipeline makes sense. It allows engineers to do further research and further refinements to refining technology.

Seriously, I'm for the Keystone project, while a lot of liberals don't want to touch tar sands at all. But I really appreciate the pragmatic approach of Obama and Stephen Chu.


If you're suggesting Conservatives are using this as a political issue........well I'm frankly shocked. Is that similar to what's going on with the contraception frenzy now consuming the airwaves? Politician do what politicians do. It's hardly unique to Romney and Santorum. But you know that. But in this case, it appears they may be on the same side as Madame Clinton.




http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/29/keystone-xl-pipeline-state-department_n_940422.html

[trish]

Sorry but I never trust anything that's in the Huffington Post, and I'm sure you don't either, right?

[onmyknees]

Sorry but I never trust anything that's in the Huffington Post, and I'm sure you don't either, right?



Well there's no question Ariana is a creep with an annoying accent who had a political mid life crisis( just ask anyone who works for her). I'm glad she's pinch hitting for your team now....lol But this is not an opinion piece. Surely you can decipher the difference.........can't you? Having said that, I did cross check the writers contentions and they seem to be factual. What's that saying about a broken clock?

[Ben]

Public pressure... and people organizing and protesting forced Obama to delay the pipeline.

And Bill McKibben was a vital part of that.

Keystone Pipeline heats up w/Bill McKibben - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldaQWcZNDQ0&feature=relmfu)

As was Naomi Klein:

Naomi Klein: Obama's Delay of Keystone XL Oil Pipeline Decision is Win for Environmentalists - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJ8CoxnjjZg)

And thousands of nameless people.
Obama is gearing up for his re-election bid. That's his focus. And this is a tactical move on his part. It's all politics.
The Republican candidates are playing the same game. Politics.
But David Hume was right. Power does reside in the people.
And they can choose to exercise that power. Or not.
They did it with respect to the pipeline. And the Occupy movement.

[Ben]

When Mr. Whitfield talks about jobs, well, that's political parley for profits. And we must remember that he is speaking for the oil industry and their profits. He speaks for his campaign contributors.
And just who are they. Well, take a gander at this:
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00003467


Whitfield on Keystone Pipeline - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzG314NtziY)

[trish]

Well there's no question Ariana is a creep with an annoying accent who had a political mid life crisis( just ask anyone who works for her). Hey, hey, hey__don't be mean. We don't have to be mean. 'Cause remember: no matter where you go ... there you are.


I'm glad she's pinch hitting for your team now....There you go again, making personal assumptions and wrong ones as well. How creepy! Didn't I just say I'm not a fan of Huff Po?


But this is not an opinion piece. Surely you can decipher the difference.........can't you? Well I can discern the difference, if that's what you mean. But that's exactly what FOX can't do. Every one of their products, opinion piece or not, is shot through and through with their especially tasty brand of conservative rhetoric and opinion. I'm somewhat surprised to see you admit Huff Po actually does better on that score.

So if the pipeline is approved in this administration and actually does bring in those twenty thousand jobs, I'm sure you'll be the first to credit Obama for their creation as I'm sure you'll be pointing your finger at him should Nebraska's water supply be irreparably ruined.

[thx1138]

The solution is simple: make the oil company executives drink a quart of Aquifer water daily. They'll move heaven and earth to make sure there's no leakage.

[Faldur]

The solution is simple: make the oil company executives drink a quart of Aquifer water daily. They'll move heaven and earth to make sure there's no leakage.

And to carry that theory out, we'd have the occupy crowd drinking a cup of piss a day just so they can see what they're dumping into our soil. Fukushima exec's would be sent in daily to be over radiated. You really think that makes sense?

[onmyknees]

Hey, hey, hey__don't be mean. We don't have to be mean. 'Cause remember: no matter where you go ... there you are.

There you go again, making personal assumptions and wrong ones as well. How creepy! Didn't I just say I'm not a fan of Huff Po?

Well I can discern the difference, if that's what you mean. But that's exactly what FOX can't do. Every one of their products, opinion piece or not, is shot through and through with their especially tasty brand of conservative rhetoric and opinion. I'm somewhat surprised to see you admit Huff Po actually does better on that score.

So if the pipeline is approved in this administration and actually does bring in those twenty thousand jobs, I'm sure you'll be the first to credit Obama for their creation as I'm sure you'll be pointing your finger at him should Nebraska's water supply be irreparably ruined.

While there will be some jobs both temporary and permanent, I see the pipeline as purely a political issue on both sides. With all due respect, if you think Obama shelved it because of some engineering concerns.....you're pissing in the wind. Nope this is pure politics, and the right should beat him into submission with this issue....similar to how you progressives beat up Bush about his "Big Oil buddies" when crude spiked during hs administration. Turn about is fair play. And with gas at over 4 bucks a gallon, now is the time to out demagogue the Demagoguer in Chief. That's how to beat a piker.

[muh_muh]

And to carry that theory out, we'd have the occupy crowd drinking a cup of piss a day just so they can see what they're dumping into our soil. Fukushima exec's would be sent in daily to be over radiated. You really think that makes sense?

personal responsibility for decision made at high levels? youre absolutely right thats an outrageously stupid concept

[trish]

You'll have to beat the Republican Governor of Nebraska into submission as well. Of course his position is purely political too. He needs the votes of his largely Republican constituency. Their position is not political. They simply want to be secure in the knowledge that their water supply will remain safe, fresh and pure.

If you read my post OMK you'll find I made no claims one way or the other about Obama or his "loyal" opposition. The concerns I expressed were my own and not political. If you consider that pissing in the wind, then you best close your mouth.

[Faldur]

personal responsibility for decision made at high levels? youre absolutely right thats an outrageously stupid concept

Do you really think the Fukushima exec's were responsible for the disaster that happened there? Thats a bit of a stretch.

[muh_muh]

were they responsible for running a plant that is way out of date? were they responsible for having a plant that was obviously not secured against something that is pretty damn likely to happen in japan? were the responsible for having the plant filled to the brink with spent fuel rods that should have been in a safe storage?
hell yeah they were

[Stavros]

There is no doubt that technology can do amazing things, and ample evidence of the enormous sums of capital that are spent in the Front End Engineering that builds and develops a nuclear power station, an oilfield and oil pipeline, and so on. Unfortunately, there is also evidence that the weak link is in the maintenance of plant over many years; in the case of oilfields like Prudhoe Bay, which are now in decline -but still producing lots of oil- the costs that maintain it are, as the euphemism goes, 'under pressure'; I would not be surprised if Fukushima was subjected to the same 'pressures'. If it was just an ageing car plant or biscuit factory it might not be so important, but the need for constant maintenance at the highest level has to be paramount with industries where the risks of something going wrong endangering life and the environment are strong -if the costs are considered 'too high' either the company concerned should lose its licence to operate, or the project should be shut down. Until the policy makers can be sure that the XL Pipeline can be built without endangering life or the environment, it should be delayed; but the emphasis should not just be on the start-up but on the whole life of the project.

[Ben]

It's more about the Tar Sands up in ol' Alberta:

David Mizejewski on Today 3:16:12 - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMsW4BleknQ)