Keystone XL: What we already knew is now confirmed

[Lord Thesaurian]

So as it turns out, after months and months of politically motivated roadblocks to the project by the Obama Administration, the central basis of opposition to the project (environmental concerns) is now thoroughly put to rest. The long-awaited 11-volume State Department report finally confirms there is "minimal" environmental risk caused by implementing the project as opposed to not implementing it. In fact, the latter option may be more "harmful" in terms of spill risks and carbon emissions because the pipeline would only carry materials that would otherwise be transferred by truck and rail, which would be marginally more "harmful" than the pipeline itself.

Story:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...dae_story.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/01/us...line.html?_r=0

Report (executive summary):

http://keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov...ion/221135.pdf

Of course, dozens of independent firms had said the same thing from the very beginning. Now the government's own thorough investigation confirms it. So, do you think the President will have no choice but to move forward on approving the issue? Of course, my bias questions what kind of country we live in when the executive branch has complete yes or no power over a commercial interest, but I digress. The interesting part here is that Obama was conspicuously non-committal on the approval issue when asked about it in the now (in)famous O'Reilly interview:

O’REILLY - All right. Keystone pipeline, new study comes in, environmental impact, negligible. Forty-two thousand jobs. You’re gonna okay it, I assume.PRESIDENT OBAMA - Well first of all, it’s not forty two thousand. That’s — that’s not, uh, correct, it’s a couple thousand to build the pipeline, but —
O’REILLY [OVERLAP] – Forty-two all told.
PRESIDENT OBAMA - Well, that, bottom line is what we’re gonna do is to, uh, the process now goes agencies comment on what the State Department did, public’s allowed to comment, Kerry’s gonna, uh, give me a recommendation, uh —

O’REILLY [OVERLAP] - All right, so I assume we’re gonna do that, after five years —
PRESIDENT OBAMA [OVERLAP] [INAUDIBLE] -

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014...-bill-oreilly/

So, do you think the President will continue to try and hamstring the project for what will now be very obvious political reasons, or do you think that, despite this, he will be forced to play "fair" on this? Any other legitimate concerns/information on the project you want to bring to the table? I personally think this is a done deal and has been for a long time. There is a tremendous amount of money to be made here and the business interests concerned have already worked out the logistics of how to move the product by other means if the Obama Administration wants to pout about the pipeline. Given that trucks and trains are alot more dangerous and "smoggy" than a pipeline, does the Administration have any legitimate reason, even by their own logic, to try and stop this venture? Of course, another topic here is where why and how the political lobbies concerned have for decades limited the number of refineries that are "able" to be built in the US, so that a massive transportation apparatus like Keystone XL is needed in the first place to get the crude oil south to the refineries, but nevertheless, here we are. Pipeline, or trains and trucks? Your thoughts.....

[Big War Bird]

Contrast the years long effort to deny the deny, derail, to drive up cost of the Keystone XL by this coffee fetcher to the days long effort by a political lackey to snarl traffic over a bridge.

[Ciciro]

Better to send it through a pipe than on a train. Those things are dangerous.

[King_Porus]

Better to send it through a pipe than on a train. Those things are dangerous.

Exactly, I don't think anyone needs a reminder of what happened to Lac-Mégantic when the ing train exploded.
The Keystone pipeline will be beneficial towards both the USA and Canada and obviously any form of oil transportation is going to be unsafe to a certain degree, but we need the stuff.

The whole anti-Keystone movement is so childish it's impossible to take seriously, look at their latest "commercial" (read propaganda):



I saw another that implied that Canada was communist on some American channel that we get. Whoever is making these things needs adult supervision next time, because according to them we're [Southern Drawl] No-good, slit-eyed, Commie, Nazi, Atheist, Mooooslims [/Southern Drawl]

[Slydessertfox]

^because we all know that is representative of everyone who opposes the pipeline.

[King_Porus]

^because we all know that is representative of everyone who opposes the pipeline.

Im not saying you're all like that, I'm saying that it's embarrassing that someone sat down, thought it through, and decided that the commercial was good idea.

[Col. Tartleton]

America needs affordable beer.

[Border Patrol]

Generally the people that oppose the pipeline are environmentalists that think getting the pipeline blocked will stop oil production. Hint: it won't.

And I find it hilarious that anyone could have actually sat down and wrote a script for that commercial with the thought "more oil = more expensive oil" and "North American oil = China benefits". There's no way everyone in that room wasn't maniacally laughing during production.

[Ulyaoth]

Oil is bad, mmkay?

[Celsius]

The oil isn't guaranteed to be sold to the U.S.. It's just a pipeline from Canada that is refined in Texas and sold on the global market. It's like having somebody run a water hose through your yard during a drought and not giving you any of the water.

[tarvu]

The oil isn't guaranteed to be sold to the U.S.. It's just a pipeline from Canada that is refined in Texas and sold on the global market. It's like having somebody run a water hose through your yard during a drought and not giving you any of the water.

Exactly, and while the OP and Fox would like people to think it is a completely "tree hugger" issue in order to discredit it.

Outside some random nobody who do you have on record saying that they think Keystone would lead to no more oil? The issue is that most pipeline deals are loaded with benefits to the countries involved in terms of cheaper energy etc.

This pipeline is not. This pipeline benefits a select few oil companies, who will then likely sell that oil to China and elsewhere certainly not promising anything cheaper on our domestic market. It provides only the temporary labor to build it, and maybe some expansion of the refineries. All these gains are of course offset compared to transporting it by other means as the report you are quoting says they would do. So the economic promise to the areas affected is pretty poor.

Even a possibility of any issues with the pipeline in vastly unpopulated areas of ND that have some of the most extreme weather conditions in the nation should be compensated to the affected populations. Not to mention the impact of the refineries, which will see their production soar as well as their emissions. If you don't think that has a significant environmental impact then you simply have never been to an area surrounding a refinery in the US.

There is an environmental cost (more than minimal), and we are not getting enough for it from an industry we heavily subsidize already and yet turns out record setting profits annually. But you're right its a no brainer for us to build it. Just like West Virginia's whimsicle love story with the coal industry. No problems here, what we already know is confirmed which is industry knows best. Industry clearly loves and cares for us all.

[Lord Thesaurian]

The oil isn't guaranteed to be sold to the U.S.. It's just a pipeline from Canada that is refined in Texas and sold on the global market. It's like having somebody run a water hose through your yard during a drought and not giving you any of the water.

I'm under no illusions that this is going to be some "Great American wealth spring" like the cronies over at Fox are saying, but regardless of what happens this is not about "environmental concerns." Part of it was already built without incident. The concern over the Sandhills Region is no longer an issue as the line has been rerouted. Now, had the Administration expressed concerns about property rights and the eminent domain claims already in the works against private landowners, their criticism would have been legitimate, as TransCanada hasn't exactly been courteous to landowners who refused to surrender their property. As long as TransCanada respects property rights and goes through the proper channels to get this thing done, I have no problem with it. However, that issue is largely ignored. All we hear about is the incessant whining over the imaginary environmental "concerns." That's just politics. And it's annoying, albeit par for the course.

Exactly, and while the OP and Fox would like people to think it is a completely "tree hugger" issue in order to discredit it.

Strawman. The Administration made its own mess by making this an environmental issue. I'm just playing the cards that are dealt. I already laid out the legitimate concerns over property rights. You can take your anecdotal environmental "criticisms" elsewhere. And your protectionist criticism that by refusing to give preference to US markets and interests, TransCanada is somehow "ing us over" is no better than Fox saying the project will create "42,000 'Murican jobs" and bring $2 gas and free beer to all It doesn't matter where and to whom TransCanada sells the oil. It may or may not make gas cheaper or more expensive or whatever from place to place. The world market is the world market.

[tarvu]

I'm under no illusions that this is going to be some "Great American wealth spring" like the cronies over at Fox are saying, but regardless of what happens this is not about "environmental concerns." Part of it was already built without incident. The concern over the Sandhills Region is no longer an issue as the line has been rerouted. Now, had the Administration expressed concerns about property rights and the eminent domain claims already in the works against private landowners, their criticism would have been legitimate, as TransCanada hasn't exactly been courteous to landowners who refused to surrender their property. As long as TransCanada respects property rights and goes through the proper channels to get this thing done, I have no problem with it. However, that issue is largely ignored. All we hear about is the incessant whining over the imaginary environmental "concerns." That's just politics. And it's annoying, albeit par for the course.

Strawman. The Administration made its own mess by making this an environmental issue. I'm just playing the cards that are dealt. I already laid out the legitimate concerns over property rights. You can take your anecdotal environmental "criticisms" elsewhere.

Property rights don't cover the environmental impact (and potential impact if there is a burst) to the areas affected.

That you don't want to acknowledge that as an issue is pretty irrelevant to me. It is an issue for those who will be affected, and they deserve a deal that doesn't screw them in the sole interest of profits for an industry they already subsidize with their tax dollars. What is your dog in this race anyways other than your personal radical ideology regarding how business ought to be revered and groveled to.

It is ridiculous, in no other country that was not a puppet being coerced would you see (practically) an entire majority political party champion a pipeline just because they are being true to their free market principles. That is what the debate will be on this forum again, and that is unfortunately the debate being pushed forward by people like Fox News. It is irrational and merely an attempt to distract people from debating the real issues impacting actual people rather than some ideological struggle.

Radicalism.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Property rights don't cover the environmental impact (and potential impact if there is a burst) to the areas affected.

That you don't want to acknowledge that as an issue is pretty irrelevant to me. It is an issue for those who will be affected, and they deserve a deal that doesn't screw them in the sole interest of profits for an industry they already subsidize with their tax dollars. What is your dog in this race anyways other than your personal radical ideology regarding how business ought to be revered and groveled to.

It is ridiculous, in no other country that was not a puppet being coerced would you see (practically) an entire majority political party champion a pipeline just because they are being true to their free market principles. That is what the debate will be on this forum again, and that is unfortunately the debate being pushed forward by people like Fox News. It is irrational and merely an attempt to distract people from debating the real issues impacting actual people rather than some ideological struggle.

Radicalism.

Get off your soapbox and read. No where in your rant did you address the State Department report or the half dozen independent reports confirming the environmental safety of the pipeline, or the fact that, by the State Dept's own admission, the alternative to the pipeline, trains and trucks, would be arguably more environmentally hazardous. If you're worried about a steel pipe buried deep beneath the ground lined with sensors and automatic shutoff valves leaking, then perhaps you can also explain how driving the oil down a busy highway or on a train track in smoke-belching vehicles is less harmful to the "environment." I expect you have some good data to support your rant, since it contradicts the State Department's 5 years of extensive research.

And "allowing" a business to operate without presidential grandstanding or protectionist strong-arming isn't "radicalism," it's basic economics. Heck, free trade is one of the few things the vast majority of economists agree is a universally beneficial concept, to the extent that those surveyed suggested the US ought to dismiss all trade tariffs; and those guys don't agree on anything Your protectionist rants are akin to medieval kings hoarding gold for fear of "foreign competition," and the fallacy of such logic was disproven centuries ago. Yes centuries. Markets aren't radical. They are an acknowledgement of reality. My "dog" in this race is that the executive branch of the US government has the power to halt the legal and now vetted commercial venture of a private company on the basis of concerns not based in any sort of fact, as established by the government's own massive study. But please, do tell, what are the "real issues impacting actual people?" You've yet to name any. Heck, I named a big one for you (property rights) and you tossed that one aside. You must have really juicy data somewhere to make such an argument.

[tarvu]

Get off your soapbox and read. No where in your rant did you address the State Department report or the half dozen independent reports confirming the environmental safety of the pipeline, or the fact that, by the State Dept's own admission, the alternative to the pipeline, trains and trucks, would be arguably more environmentally hazardous. If you're worried about a steel pipe buried deep beneath the ground lined with sensors and automatic shutoff valves leaking, then perhaps you can also explain how driving the oil down a busy highway or on a train track in smoke-belching vehicles is less harmful to the "environment." I expect you have some good data to support your rant, since it contradicts the State Department's 5 years of extensive research.

And "allowing" a business to operate without presidential grandstanding or protectionist strong-arming isn't "radicalism," it's basic economics. Heck, free trade is one of the few things the vast majority of economists agree is a universally beneficial concept, to the extent that those surveyed suggested the US ought to dismiss all trade tariffs; and those guys don't agree on anything Your protectionist rants are akin to medieval kings hoarding gold for fear of "foreign competition," and the fallacy of such logic was disproven centuries ago. Yes centuries. Markets aren't radical. They are an acknowledgement of reality. My "dog" in this race is that the executive branch of the US government has the power to halt the legal and now vetted commercial venture of a private company on the basis of concerns not based in any sort of fact, as established by the government's own massive study. But please, do tell, what are the "real issues impacting actual people?" You've yet to name any. Heck, I named a big one for you (property rights) and you tossed that one aside. You must have really juicy data somewhere to make such an argument.

Government approval of major, potentially dangerous infrastructure through thousands of miles of US land, near communities, water sources, agriculture and natural areas is protectionism?

No, I'm sorry but it is not an issue of free trade when they have to build a pipeline through the United States to transport it.

Do you think that we don't transport oil by rail in the United States already? Can it also cause industrial accidents, of course. But they don't want to build the keystone pipeline in order to reduce rail collisions and accidents. They want to do it to save billions of dollars in cost over the years the pipeline is active.

They are in it to make a huge profit, and the risk is to the people in the affected areas, and all other taxpayers in the United States. We already subsidize the industry heavily, and we have minimal regulation over the oil industry in this country. We absolutely have a say in whether the pipeline gets built in our backyards, and right now I don't see how it is in the country's best interest at all.

[Celsius]

I'm under no illusions that this is going to be some "Great American wealth spring" like the cronies over at Fox are saying, but regardless of what happens this is not about "environmental concerns." Part of it was already built without incident. The concern over the Sandhills Region is no longer an issue as the line has been rerouted. Now, had the Administration expressed concerns about property rights and the eminent domain claims already in the works against private landowners, their criticism would have been legitimate, as TransCanada hasn't exactly been courteous to landowners who refused to surrender their property. As long as TransCanada respects property rights and goes through the proper channels to get this thing done, I have no problem with it. However, that issue is largely ignored. All we hear about is the incessant whining over the imaginary environmental "concerns." That's just politics. And it's annoying, albeit par for the course.

While the argument could be made that it's still dirty sand tar oil going through that pipeline which is worse than oil extracted the old fashion way, I must admit that the pipeline itself doesn't pose a concern. Unless you count when a pipeline busted in Arkansas and the Exxon "cleaned it up" with paper towels and had a media blackout on it. If such a thing were to happen with Keystone and it's dirty oil, it could cause millions in damage and unimaginable damage to the effected areas.

[Unbooked Pizza]

I don't know what to believe. On one hand, all the facts point to this being a good idea. But on the other hand, that Canadian guy on King Porus' video is awfully scary. I wouldn't trust him.

[Vanoi]

Legio, its not hard to understand. The pipeline will not benefit the US. The oil is not staying in America. Its going to create thousands of jobs building the pipeline, but most of those jobs will be gone after the pipeline is finished. And all that oil just ends up right in Canada. The only people being benefited from this pipeline are the people building it.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Legio, its not hard to understand. The pipeline will not benefit the US. The oil is not staying in America. Its going to create thousands of jobs building the pipeline, but most of those jobs will be gone after the pipeline is finished. And all that oil just ends up right in Canada. The only people being benefited from this pipeline are the people building it.

Who is "the US?" Why does the fact that the oil isn't "staying in America" matter, especially when if it were forced to "stay in America," that would actually make everyone worse off? Who cares how many "'Murican jobs" this project "creates" o doesn't create? Why does any of the aforementioned topics make the pipeline itself the sole prerogative of the President? And no, the very definition of trade means that buyers and sellers both benefit in this transaction, whoever that may be. See the links above. I guess it just baffles me that people refuse to acknowledge basic proven economic concepts because the latter happens to conflict with their worldview.

[tarvu]

Who is "the US?" Why does the fact that the oil isn't "staying in America" matter, especially when if it were forced to "stay in America," that would actually make everyone worse off? Who cares how many "'Murican jobs" this project "creates" o doesn't create? Why does any of the aforementioned topics make the pipeline itself the sole prerogative of the President? And no, the very definition of trade means that buyers and sellers both benefit in this transaction, whoever that may be. See the links above. I guess it just baffles me that people refuse to acknowledge basic proven economic concepts because the latter happens to conflict with their worldview.

They require federal/state assistance in obtaining the land, and even if they hadn't needed the right of eminent domain (as in they actually owned the land they need) you still have a potentially dangerous piece of infrastructure winding through multiple states, affecting the nations agriculture, affecting major aquifers that provide water to billions in industries other than oil.

Well they are private companies so we should just not only let them do whatever they want endangering the rest of us. They provide an (unspecified) amount of jobs so their cost is irrelevant!".

I'm not getting any other argument from you, and I'm sorry but no there are limits to what we have to grant businesses. We are not embargoing Canadian oil imports. Canada is not under sanctions. We are talking about the construction of a pipeline not protectionism.

Profits also are not a direct correlation to job creation.

Example: Refineries having to ship the same exact amount of oil then have to engage another industry entirely in the trucking and/or rail companies. A form of transporting oil that not only costs more but happens to provide a hell of a lot more than 36 (# of permanent jobs created by the pipeline) permanent well paying jobs.