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/as...r_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/as...r_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/2011/0..._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.



As was Naomi Klein:



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/politicia...?cid=N00003467