Keystone

[onejayhawk]

The handwriting is on the wall. A Keystone pipeline bill will be coming early in the new congress. This thread is to discuss the pros and cons. Try to keep the discussion with the facts, not with the politics. There are two major and several minor components to the debate. The first is a pipeline from Steele City to Cushing, the so called Cushing extension. The second part is the "XL" extension, from Hardesty to Steele City, the so called "XL" pipeline. Various other components involve upgrading existing facilities.

Objections based on greenhouse gas emissions are not germane. The basic truth is that the oil will be shipped by pipeline, train or by tanker, but it will be shipped. If your only objection is that green house gasses are bad, then you have no objection. This is a distinction without a difference.

The position of the Republican party is that all of this is a no brainer. It will provide jobs, tax revenue and will decrease our reliance on unstable crude petroleum sources, particularly the middle east. I would add that the pipeline is more ecologically sound than tankers and that it would benefit Canada, a key strategic ally.

I will also note that some very Democratic Party oriented groups, such as the Laborers Union and the Plumbers & Pipefitters Union support all the versions of the pipeline. Unions opposed to it are silent rather than than active in their opposition. This may indicate a deep divide within the specific Union.

To reiterate, if your only objection is that Carbon emissions are bad, do not bother making it. It is understood by all parties.

J

[Steve]

. Try to keep the discussion with the facts, not with the politics

J

[onejayhawk]

I love how he precedes his statement about how wonderful everyone agrees this thing is with an insistence that we "keep the discussion with the fact, not with the politics". "Decrease our reliance on unstable blahblahgarbeldygarblenonsense".


As usual, I just assume he must be joking since it's so ridiculous.

Not exactly. I gave the Republican position. I grant that did not remove politics from the discussion.

I would like to see why they are wrong in thinking it would, "Decrease our reliance on unstable blahblahgarbeldygarblenonsense".

Not joking. I seriously do not understand the opposition on this one.

J

[Judge Jude]

I looked for the last factcheck.org comprehensive look, it's from March:

http://www.factcheck.org/2014/03/pipeline-primer/

"Building the pipeline will create jobs in the U.S., but not as many as supporters have claimed, and only for a year or two. The U.S. State Department estimates that 42,100 jobs would be added during construction, but that only 50 workers would be required to operate the pipeline.

Oil from Canadian bitumen deposits — which the Keystone would carry from Alberta to the U.S. for refining — results in 14 percent to 20 percent more greenhouse gas emissions than oil typically consumed in the U.S. at present.

But that doesn’t mean that stopping the pipeline would prevent Canadians from extracting their crude and getting it to market to be burned, either in the U.S. or other countries. “Such a change is not likely to occur,” State concluded.

In fact, much of that oil is reaching the U.S. already — by rail — and more tank-car capacity is being added quickly. Canadians also are proposing two other pipelines to tanker ports on the Pacific coast, and a third project to nearly double the effective capacity of an existing line to the U.S.

Pipelines are dangerous, but tanker cars are more so. Rail accidents spilled more oil in the U.S. last year than in all the previous years on record combined. And in Canada, 47 people died in one fiery tanker-train disaster in Quebec last year."

[onejayhawk]

I mean, you're aware that this mega pipeline that is so enthusiastically supported by only SOME people will be exporting the massive majority of its oil outside the United States, right? It's weird, but not unexpected, that people throw themselves so fervently behind corporate causes in the name of some thin bullshit like national security. It's a fucking pipeline. It's like fighting for a sweater factory because you're afraid of the unreliability of sweater sources like China. Oh, and the sweater factory is located in Canada, not the US, and will be making some sweaters for the US but the vast majority will go elsewhere.

Defend. If this were the case, it seems to be headed the wrong direction. Japan would be the logical purchaser. Also, refineries in Illinois and Texas are at the terminal ends. The vast bulk of their output is used domestically.

What did I state as fact that was supposedly wrong? I said, "I would add that the pipeline is more ecologically sound than tankers and that it would benefit Canada, a key strategic ally." JJ supported the first in his post.

I had not seen that ad. Thanks for that. If you were taking shots at the Republican position, you missed. As JJ pointed out, the 40,000 job figure is accurate. 3900 long term jobs seems reasonable. Allusions to Middle Eastern oil are less accurate, though I would not discount them entirely. Also, Venzuela is unstable politicall and unreliable in terms of production. A big part of the three pinocchios was price, which had not been raised.

J

[Pogues]

I looked for the last factcheck.org comprehensive look, it's from March:

http://www.factcheck.org/2014/03/pipeline-primer/

Oil from Canadian bitumen deposits — which the Keystone would carry from Alberta to the U.S. for refining — results in 14 percent to 20 percent more greenhouse gas emissions than oil typically consumed in the U.S. at present.

That's all well and good, but how does that compare to the emissions to ship it by rail? Of course, if we are hell bent on using that oil, it doesn't really matter...we'd be using up those emissions one way or another.

I don't really know much about this pipeline, but I've been paying attention to a pipeline they wish to run through Pennsylvania, including through Lancaster County. The big issue there is running it through protected lands, farmland that has been deemed protected (and therefore cannot be developed in any manner...it must stay a farm), and not running on the course of a current pipeline through the county for a majority of the run...which it could by adding a few miles distance at the bottom end.

So any pipeline, such as this Keystone line, would need to avoid lands that are protected, and try to follow rails or roads as much as possible. If it does all that, then I really don't have an issue with the pipeline.

That's my fact.

[onejayhawk]

Look it up yourself. I'm tired of refuting your bs. Judge Jude posts a factcheck which alludes to 40k jobs for "a year or two" and that only 50 people will work the pipeline. Your response is that 3,900 long term jobs is reasonable. Seems like pissing in the wind to really even continue this.

My response was that the claim of 40K jobs was accurate. Even you conceded just now. You introduced the 50 number. Judge Jude had already refuted that with the 3900. I merely agreed that was plausible. I did point out that your citation addressed issues not under consideration. Your fact check did not stand up to a fact check--the 40,000 jobs is accurate--and otherwise immaterial. So far you've whiffed.

This has all the signs of seminar thinking. If you have no thoughts of your own it's not a problem.

That's all well and good, but how does that compare to the emissions to ship it by rail? Of course, if we are hell bent on using that oil, it doesn't really matter...we'd be using up those emissions one way or another.

I don't really know much about this pipeline, but I've been paying attention to a pipeline they wish to run through Pennsylvania, including through Lancaster County. The big issue there is running it through protected lands, farmland that has been deemed protected (and therefore cannot be developed in any manner...it must stay a farm), and not running on the course of a current pipeline through the county for a majority of the run...which it could by adding a few miles distance at the bottom end.

So any pipeline, such as this Keystone line, would need to avoid lands that are protected, and try to follow rails or roads as much as possible. If it does all that, then I really don't have an issue with the pipeline.

That's my fact.

Pipeline transport is much better than either tank car water transport on a lot of levels. For emissions you are comparing diesel engines to electric. It is also much better in terms of spillage. Pipeline spills tend to be massive, but they are also rare. Rail accidents are relatively common. There are also advantages from reliability and easy of handling.

I cannot speak to the right of way issue. These are sparsely settled area compared to rural Pennsylvania, which helps. Some of it is over public lands, which is one reason why Congress is involved.

J

[onejayhawk]

No need to shout.

It would have been better if you had started with the links.

35 or 50 jobs working directly on the pipeline. You should know that is not the whole picture. There are also support jobs.

The WaPo article is a red herring. It only points out that Canada is "Foreign".

Your final quote is best, but it also contradicts what you said. You said that the " will be exporting the massive majority of its oil outside the United States." The article states the opposite. However, it continues that refined products may be exported. I have no problem with that. I doubt that many on Capital hoo would.

J

[chancellor]

The level of fallacy on both sides - not here, but in the press - is astounding.

Enviros act as if they stop the pipeline, then the oil won't be mined and refined. Thank you for playing, but no. The only thing that will stop bitumen sands oil from coming out is oil prices - somewhere just south of $70/bbl will likely put a halt to new projects.

Pro-Keystoners act as if we get the pipeline, then lots and lots of jobs will be created long term. Thank you for playing, but no again. Actually, I'd argue the net long term will be job losses - shipping by rail requires a lot more than 50 full-time jobs. And even if I don't buy 50, and it's off by a factor of 10, shipping by rail requires a lot more than 500 full-time jobs, too.

So why do I favor it?

1. I'd rather have Canada producing this oil and selling it than some environmental disaster like Russia or Venezuela. Not that it'll be perfect, but Canada has far better environmental regs and enforcement than just about every other oil producer, excepting Norway.
2. Shipping by pipeline is quantifiably safer and more environmentally sound than shipping by rail.
3. I'd rather the US get a slice of the refining pie in terms of job creation rather than see the oil go west and have it refined in China and Japan. We won't get all of it, but even half would be not bad.
4. More oil out of the western hemisphere hurts countries like Russia and Iran.

[onejayhawk]

In chancellor's vein, http://online.wsj.com/articles/danie...oil-1417386897

It's a subscription article, so here is an excerpt:

The biggest impact of lower oil prices on future output may well be not in North America, where many people are looking for it, but in the rest of the world. Even before the collapse in prices, major oil and natural-gas companies had become preoccupied with the continually rising costs of developing new supply and were heeding the call from investors for “capital discipline.”

This price decline will turn this preoccupation into an obsession. The result will be a slowdown and reduction in major new investments around the world. The losers will be the nations trying to woo investment for new oil and natural-gas projects. Countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America are already finding that fewer companies are showing up to bid for new opportunities, and such bids that are proffered will be lower, perhaps much lower, than governments were expecting. The days are past when these countries can insist on very tough terms in taxes, royalties and other requirements that drive up costs and cause delay.

J

[Moonlight J]

There are nearly as many posts in this thread as permanent jobs that will be created by this boondoggle.

If a bill gets to Obama's desk and he doesn't veto it, impeach him

[Hornsby]

There are nearly as many posts in this thread as permanent jobs that will be created by this boondoggle.

If a bill gets to Obama's desk and he doesn't veto it, impeach him

Seems a bit harsh, don't ya think? On what grounds would you impeach him anyway?

This is one of those "who gives a shit" issues to me...it'll likely have negligible impact on both the economy and the environment, and it's not like the country isn't crisscrossed with pipelines as it is. I can walk less than a mile from my house and find pipelines for Natural Gas and Fuel Oil...really nothing remarkable about this project that I can see. Build it or don't, just stop talking about it...

[nots]

Seems a bit harsh, don't ya think? On what grounds would you impeach him anyway?

This is one of those "who gives a shit" issues to me...it'll likely have negligible impact on both the economy and the environment, and it's not like the country isn't crisscrossed with pipelines as it is. I can walk less than a mile from my house and find pipelines for Natural Gas and Fuel Oil...really nothing remarkable about this project that I can see. Build it or don't, just stop talking about it...

Great post and I couldn't agree more. The whole thing is nothing more than a political football with both sides lying and/or misleading to try and get the 'win'. No real impact on the environment or on permanent jobs numbers if it's built. Total beltway BS.
Every time I read an article in favor of it, I am convinced it shouldn't be built. Every time I read an article against it, I am convinced it should. Both sides are so disingenuous.
Either the GOP or the President could actually get something passed they truly wanted to by using the Pipeline as a bargaining chip. I doubt it will happen because the political value of the Pipeline win exceeds the actual value.

[Pogues]

Seems a bit harsh, don't ya think? On what grounds would you impeach him anyway?

This is one of those "who gives a shit" issues to me...it'll likely have negligible impact on both the economy and the environment, and it's not like the country isn't crisscrossed with pipelines as it is. I can walk less than a mile from my house and find pipelines for Natural Gas and Fuel Oil...really nothing remarkable about this project that I can see. Build it or don't, just stop talking about it...

A pipeline. Run properly has slightly more of an environmental impact as...say...a road.

[GwynnInTheHall]

A pipeline. Run properly has slightly more of an environmental impact as...say...a road.

Run properly being the key. Trans Canada has had a history of “inadequate” field inspections and “ineffective” management. There was a rupture in one of it's natural gas pipelines in 2011 due to the pipes being 95% corroded from a known bacteria, which Trans canada failed to monitor properly. Should there be NO incidents then the environmental impact should be minimal. However, this isn't your regular pumped out of the ground in Texas oil, this is Tar sands oil which is very different and far more toxic to the environment and more difficult to clean up. Though the US won't deal with it directly, removing tar sands devestates the area from which it's mined and converting that oil to fuel emits 3 times the emissions of refining regular crude Once you use that fuel you release up to 20% more greenhouse gasses into the air.

In any case it's a moot point as Obama has decided against the project.