Thoughts on the XL Pipeline

[conon394]

So the Nebraska courts have spoken and the XL is fine. The Republicans won Senate but probably don't have veto votes to overturn number of Democrats to bring along - seeing as they swept away a lot 'purple' Dems anyway.

Obama faces is facing a real policy test here with implications for the next democratic candidate and the next congressional election round. Its possible he could get a deal on something from the Congress for approving something that is really a minor issue but as been elevated some vast thing by the extremes sides of both parties. Or he could veto and throw the easy bone the the hard left but annoy unions and be a 'job destroyer' or something.

Personally a deal seems like the best option to me since Obama can theoretically get something he wants as well. The pipelines issue is silly in the first place since its not the US is covered with hundreds of pipelines (and roads and damns and canals) that were produced by eminent domain and are all a fail on that test and destroy land or habitat.

Side: Note map of US pipelines Nebraska is hardly a virgin wilderness...



So I guess I could see a fuss about say Washington (state) but really Nebraska the place is covered in pipelines. Personally since the republicans want the XL so bad I would sign the a deal in a moment as I said even if all I got funding for better regulations of pipelines and more authority to fine poor maintenance and such if it caused an accident. Or any other progressive act - get student loan debt forgiveness, better tax credits for solar, some any EPA rule the republicans hate. BUT make a deal

Sure Obama's green left will howl. But for What? Its not like the same oil is not moving by train. Or that other pipelines in the US have not been reversed to move sand oil (older pipelines mind you). Or that Canada is not sort of you know committed to the developing and exporting said oil. Or that Canada has an east coast route almost in play and has a couple other as well on drawing board (*). They might be risky now $50 a gallon but what happens when the House of Saud is done playing oil price manipulator.

The delay behind the State Department and courts in Nebraska was a decent ideal assuming the Dems held the Senate. But like I said now is the time to deal, I don't think the Republicans can force the issue and get something in return for a trivial issue that has in the US become huge.

Even if you are a hard green is this silly fight worth it? If you are from Europe or elsewhere are infrastructure projects so hotly contested or just done. Why has the temporary nature of the most if the jobs become a talking point - since its the same with anything else road, damn, house. If you are pro XL and American what you would horse trade for it if your where leading the House and Senate?






* yes I have sources for all three if you want but I don't care to dig them up now

[justicar5]

the High Speed 2 project (high speed railway connecting London to the North) is being opposed, some by Conservatives whose constituencies stand to have a rail line built through them, so that's the NIMBY instinct, some by people who think the entire project costs to much, and others who think that it will drain yet more business and people to London, turning every stop into a huge commuter belt. I'm in the waste of money camp.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Speed_2

[Denny Crane!]

the High Speed 2 project (high speed railway connecting London to the North) is being opposed, some by Conservatives whose constituencies stand to have a rail line built through them, so that's the NIMBY instinct, some by people who think the entire project costs to much, and others who think that it will drain yet more business and people to London, turning every stop into a huge commuter belt. I'm in the waste of money camp.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Speed_2

When you could upgrade the entire national network to electric which is badly needed for a paltry 2-4 billion pounds then yes I am against a vanity project of 47 billion. Get the basics taken care of first perhaps you know?

And also the London thing. Also for politicians, apparently the North isn't actually the North, it usually stops at Manchester. Hell I'd have us seceding to Scotland if we could, if they weren't all nuts that is.

[hellheaven1987]

The only major environmental issue about Keystone XL is a leakage may pollute the groundwater which is the sole water source for some states, although one of my geology professor mentions it is not as bad as how the environmentalists try to make it look like and there are good oil pipeline design that can minimize the risk.

[mrmouth]

The only major environmental issue about Keystone XL is a leakage may pollute the groundwater which is the sole water source for some states

It also crosses the most valuable farm land in the world, as well as some refuge areas for threatened species. That is a costly accident waiting to happen even before the increase in earthquakes dues to us pumping waste water and fracking fluid into the ground.


In the 2015, we don't need a new pipeline. Especially when it would have a negligible effect on US energy prices. Let's invest in battery technology and other renewables. It's called progress. Something the GOP dislikes. Just continue to drag them kicking and screaming in the future. We even had to do it with light bulbs.

This stupid pipeline would have meant roughly 50 maintenece jobs after it was built. I'd like to help our Canadian friends but the oil industry are just behind the tobacco industry in terms of trustworthiness and track record.

And the South is already full of Republican governors who have no problem polluting their states into oblivion. They don't need another excuse to build or host more refineries with zero regulation. They are going to take plenty of government money to help clean up their messes already.

[Lord Thesaurian]

I have to concur with the OP, though I cannot be so kind to the politicking that has swirled around this project for no reason.

What we know:

1. Pipelines are routinely built across state and international boundaries without the President getting involved, let alone almost single-handedly halting construction for years (see OP graph)
2. Sections of the Keystone XL pipeline are already complete, including sections that cross over the much-discussed Ogallala Aquifer and the area of the Aquifer in Southern Nebraska considered to be especially vulnerable:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

3. According to the State Department report on the project, even a major spill from the pipeline would only impact an area in a lateral radius of several hundred feet, and poses no real risk to the groundwater located several hundred or, in the case of the aquifer, over 1,000 feet underground; nor does the pipeline pose risks to major sources of drinking water.
4. The project proses no measurable environmental risk overall beyond temporary "dust" and pollution due to construction. (See report)
5. If the project is blocked, the oil will simply be transported by truck and rail (as it has been, only perhaps on a greater scale), equating if not exceeding even the worst foreseeable environmental impacts of the pipeline, due to spills/wrecks/carbon emissions. (see report)
6. The President has cited vague "environmental concerns" as his reasoning for blocking the project, concerns which are proven utterly unfounded in context of the net empirical results. (see report)

So, given all this, why has the President/Congress made a political football out of this otherwise completely non-controversial pipeline? Whatever the reason, it is utterly inexcusable that a private firm wishing to do legal business in the US is being strong-armed for political sport by the President and his allies.

This has nothing to do with jobs or no jobs; a broken window fallacy no matter which political side one is on. This has nothing to do with "Canadians taking our oil against the national interest." Firstly, such a statement is ignorant of how economics works. Second, from a security standpoint, Canada is the closest friend and ally of the US, so I see no real merit in worrying about them "coming forth to tread upon our sacred shores."

My conjecture: I am at a loss as to why this project is being blocked for so long and so fervently by the Administration. I wonder whether TransCanada simply failed to swing enough lobbying dollars in the right direction, and now the Administration, like a woman scorned, may be simply flexing its political muscles to remind potential donors who's in charge. We saw a similar situation with Apple in 2013 where, amid Congressional and media outrage about Apple's "tax evasion," Apple's lobbying expenditures jumped some 75% compared to 2012 and remained high through 2014. And perhaps by sheer coincidence, no more Congressional inquiries or Senate hearings, no more outcry from politicians, even as the company has been faced with similar tax haven inquiries in Europe in the latter half of last year. Perhaps the DC Mafia is simply encouraging TransCanada to be a little more charitable....?

[Sphere]

My conjecture: I am at a loss as to why this project is being blocked for so long and so fervently by the Administration.

There seems to be a pissing match going on between State and the EPA over it. But more importantly, the big environmental lobby groups have openly threatened to unleash their war-chests on the issue. These groups have already brought a string of legal challenges to pipeline, and the administration probably wasn't eager to get on their bad side. This is despite the fact that a majority of even democrats support the project.

The administration has basically tried to have its cake and eat it too, with Obama publicly supporting the project in principle, but saying the lawsuits, department reports etc. need to playout first. In their defense, court challenges could prevent construction, making "approval" rather moot except for pissing off a bunch of special interest groups. Why stick your political neck out if it doesn't get you a pipeline anyway?

But it is likely going to come to a head now that the Nebraska Supreme Court has ruled, and the Republicans are pressing the issue in Congress.

[Lord Thesaurian]

There seems to be a pissing match going on between State and the EPA over it. But more importantly, the big environmental lobby groups have openly threatened to unleash their war-chests on the issue. These groups have already brought a string of legal challenges to pipeline, and the administration probably wasn't eager to get on their bad side. This is despite the fact that a majority of even democrats support the project.

The administration has basically tried to have its cake and eat it too, with Obama publicly supporting the project in principle, but saying the lawsuits, department reports etc. need to playout first. In their defense, court challenges could prevent construction, making "approval" rather moot except for pissing off a bunch of special interest groups. Why stick your political neck out if it doesn't get you a pipeline anyway?

But it is likely going to come to a head now that the Nebraska Supreme Court has ruled, and the Republicans are pressing the issue in Congress.

But that is part of what befuddles me. If, as an environmental advocacy group, your goal is to minimize harm to the natural environment, why would you undertake a huge crusade against an otherwise practically mundane project, mostly completed, and one which if left uncompleted will likely result in an equal or greater amount of environmental damage? I get that money, power and publicity come into play here, I'm just not sure why here, why now.

Plus, to me, there seems to be a huge difference between playing the wait and see game in politics, and publicly vowing to veto a bill before it even gets through Congress. I guess, as you say, we'll see what happens if and when the bill hits the President's desk.

[Phier]

But that is part of what befuddles me. If, as an environmental advocacy group, your goal is to minimize harm to the natural environment, why would you undertake a huge crusade against an otherwise practically mundane project, mostly completed, and one which if left uncompleted will likely result in an equal or greater amount of environmental damage?

People can be passionate about their religion, logic plays no part.

[Lord Thesaurian]

People can be passionate about their religion, logic plays no part.

Exactly. I've wondered why conservative news agencies like Fox have instead latched onto the ridiculous jobs debate when they could just as easily achieve their goal of discrediting the Administration's stance/the environmental hype simply by bringing up the State Department report.

And from the Administration's point of view, final authority to approve/reject the project has been vested in the State Department under Executive Order 11423. Ergo why play along with Congressional Republicans' thus far seemingly successful attempts to embarrass the Administration by forcing the President to approve/reject a largely symbolic bill on the issue? The President could have said from the beginning something along the lines of "I trust the State Department to make wise decisions on these issues as they have for decades..." and defused the issue or at least left the environmentalists to bang their heads against the walls of the State Dept HQ. Instead he decides to play Ying to the Republican Yang and not only express concerns on the issue, but openly oppose it and use his authority as CEO of the US Government to drag out the process, even after the special State Dept report he commissioned is published.

I just don't see how any political capital he gains from the fringe environmentalist corner by siding with them could really benefit him at this point, given it's his second term and many Democrats already support the project. It seems this is all the usual political theater, only without the final prestige.

[justicar5]

But that is part of what befuddles me. If, as an environmental advocacy group, your goal is to minimize harm to the natural environment, why would you undertake a huge crusade against an otherwise practically mundane project, mostly completed, and one which if left uncompleted will likely result in an equal or greater amount of environmental damage? I get that money, power and publicity come into play here, I'm just not sure why here, why now.

Plus, to me, there seems to be a huge difference between playing the wait and see game in politics, and publicly vowing to veto a bill before it even gets through Congress. I guess, as you say, we'll see what happens if and when the bill hits the President's desk.

Because you are opposed to more fossil fuels being used on principal, the more expensive it gets the more people are likely to move away from it so anything that makes it more expensive and harder to get is seen as a good. Personnelly I do want to move away from fossil fuels ,

People can be passionate about their religion, logic plays no part.

This would be why shale gas has got off the ground despite the devastation it causes. But I have no kids, so if conservatives wont to make the world hellish for theirs, I have given up.

[Sphere]

I just don't see how any political capital he gains from the fringe environmentalist corner by siding with them could really benefit him at this point, given it's his second term and many Democrats already support the project. It seems this is all the usual political theater, only without the final prestige.

Money talks in Washington. And the Sierra Club, Greenpeace etc. have plenty of it.

[chilon]

Money talks in Washington. And the Sierra Club, Greenpeace etc. have plenty of it.

Amusing. Compared to the fossil fuel lobby the Sierra Club and Greenpeace are street beggars asking for a quarter or a smoke.

[Sphere]

Amusing. Compared to the fossil fuel lobby the Sierra Club and Greenpeace are street beggars asking for a quarter or a smoke.

The two might not be as separate as you think. Canadian oil sands has competitors in the oil market.

http://freebeacon.com/issues/foreign...n-oil-company/

[Phier]

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...MPLATE=DEFAULT

The #1 president folks.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Defying the Republican-run Congress, President Barack Obama rejected a bill Tuesday to approve construction of the Keystone XL oil pipeline, wielding his veto power for only the third time in his presidency.

[conon394]

It also crosses the most valuable farm land in the world

Well that is debatable in general but also since Kansas is rapidly running out of it aquifer and will need to switch back to dry land farming... The Palouse is better wheat land.

In the 2015, we don't need a new pipeline

I would disagree as a well run pipeline and well REGULATED would be better than trains.

Especially when it would have a negligible effect on US energy prices

No argument on that

Let's invest in battery technology and other renewables. It's called progress. Something the GOP dislikes. Just continue to drag them kicking and screaming in the future. We even had to do it with light bulbs.

I agree but that is the art of the possible. You know politics. Not going to happen now because of the zealots on the right and the left. But I still as my OP think this fight was blunder. the XL should have been a chip to things progressives and lefties like - say more tax credits for solar power etc.

This stupid pipeline would have meant roughly 50 maintenece jobs after it was built. I'd like to help our Canadian friends but the oil industry are just behind the tobacco industry in terms of trustworthiness and track record.

True, but it would have created temporary demand and jobs when needed badly. And both sides could have walked out of an agreement talking that up.

[Shaun]

A pipeline is generally a preferable solution to transporting oil by rail (both economically and safety wise), which is what generally happens onshore in America, and which has already suffered accidents. 47 people were killed in Canada in one such incident.

[Lord of Nihilism]

I'm against the Pipeline and I've attended several protests myself against the Pipeline, and will continue to do so until it's axed or we find a country that's willing to offer more than what the Americans are paying.

[conon394]

I'm against the Pipeline and I've attended several protests myself against the Pipeline, and will continue to do so until it's axed or we find a country that's willing to offer more than what the Americans are paying.

Well of course the funny thing is not even Canada does since the lines to the West are mired up in controversy (inside Canada all by itself) but don't be so anti-American. Lines have been reversed in the US quite w/o notice and the East route that goes through Michigan and New England is more or less approved and under the RADAR. Canada is getting its product to market to bad it likely at a loss right now...

I mean really here is the a good map of the existing system





Really you are talking about a crazy quilt of US and Canadian companies and intrest and refineries and exporters etc. The laser focus on the XL is silly and it has been pushed to that silliness by the extremes at all sides

[Lord of Nihilism]

Well of course the funny thing is not even Canada does since the lines to the West are mired up in controversy (inside Canada all by itself) but don't be so anti-American.

Why would I be anti-American? The only controversy is in the US; American officials and high ranking executives want the Pipeline to be built since it would increase profits, but of course they ignore environmental concerns.

Lines have been reversed in the US quite w/o notice and the East route that goes through Michigan and New England is more or less approved and under the RADAR. Canada is getting its product to market to bad it likely at a loss right now...

Yes, we're selling to the Americans at a loss; it's exactly why the Government shouldn't support this deal. If we choose to deliver the petrol to the PRC instead of the US, it actually has a lot of benefits, and most importantly we would be selling the petrol at a profit instead of a loss. Once the XL gets built, we should use that pipeline to deliver petrol to the PRC because of three reasons:

1)It'll open up even more jobs(For ship building industries) since all of that petrol would have to be shipped via transport ships/tankers. So on top of all the construction jobs for the actual pipeline, even more jobs would be available in the ship building sector.
2)We won't sell our petrol at a loss. I've always argued that our relationship with the Americans is dangerous and works similar to how a poison works, and this deal with the Americans is no different. If the Americans want our petrol then they need to pay fairly, instead of screwing us over and forcing us to sell at a loss. Incidentally, the PRC would no doubt pay more for our petrol than than the Americans simply because they already secured petrol reserves from Russia a while back(Trade agreement that heavily favoured the PRC), and they want Canadians to view the PRC as a country that trades on equal grounds.
3) If we sell our petrol to the PRC, it'll prove we don't rely on the Americans and thus it'll improve our global image and reputation.

Really you are talking about a crazy quilt of US and Canadian companies and intrest and refineries and exporters etc. The laser focus on the XL is silly and it has been pushed to that silliness by the extremes at all sides

It's been focused on because it can have severe consequences(Pipeline failures which can result in Canada's natural resources to be permanently destroyed), and also has the ability to change the World Order.