Those added “chemicals” are lighter petroleum products like naptha. Noone seems to have a problem with the piping of pure naptha but now you have a problem with naptha when it is shipped with dilbit?
The opposition is so that climate warriors can scream into the wind and feel like they’ve accomplished something.
For a nice take down of this human hating attitude, please check out this alternative view of the environmental movement. I agree with Michael almost 100%, this is the way forward.
Sorry for my long delay, sometimes I have to shovel so much coal to keep the gravy train moving it doesn’t leave much time for anything else. You make a lot of points; I want to respond to at least something-
- Wrong bill. The claim is that the omnibus budget bill has the exemption from spill liability for TransCanada. I still can’t prove that, I can only point out that such a thing isn’t unprecedented, see the banks.
- I wouldn’t be surprised if any politician were caught lying. I’m just not sure we’ve proved it in this case- these guys are also slimy yanno.
I’ll try to hurry back.
I think this is a good try and I’m glad your side has some sharp wits to voice its position. But the fact is that the nature of dilbit is the primary cause of the difference in the difficulty in cleaning up these spills. Dilbit sinks, they can’t get it out of the Kalamazoo River without dredging up to 35 miles, and that costs a freaking fortune.
Now, if you want to say that BP left behind a bunch of oil sunk to the ocean floor by Corexit instead of actually cleaning it up and that they can get away with that more easily in the ocean than in Michigan, fine. But if you want to talk away the difference between dilbit and crude oil, I call shenanigans.
It has been claimed in this thread that a refinery on the Canadian side of the border would cost upwards of a billion dollars. They have the 2nd largest oil reserves in the world- they can afford it. How about they refine their dilbit into crude before exporting it through other countries via pipeline?
Your see the banks example isn’t even a specific company tax break. In fact, it was by design effectively all banks that received tarp funds in order to not stigmatize the most stressed.
This is silly though. There isn’t any exemption from liability. The is the worst kind of “prove a negative” type of item. I’m willing to look up items, but I can’t look up the absence of item.
I don’t use talking points from any side. I’m probably the only person on this board that would actually be financially hurt by the keystone xl pipeline. I own oil interests in the gulf coast, and additional barrels being added to that market will worsen pricing differentials. Shit, ban all tar sands production, and I’ll instantly make a fortune due to the effect it will have on global crude prices. Ban fracking while you’re at it. Bomb Saudi Arabia. If all I cared about was my personal self interest then the positions I would hold would be easy.
I think the pipeline should be approved because this is not appropriate governmental action. The process is also a complete sham. Obama is lying when he says this is some routine review process that just needs to run its course. It doesn’t take 7 years to review a pipeline project; that’s absurd. He’s a coward because he won’t make a decision and he lies about the reason he won’t make it.
That’s fair enough. Still, the claim is that the omnibus budget bill has a specific liability provision regarding the XL.
That’s fair too. I’m trying to find it myself- if enough time passes and I can’t, I’ll have to drop it. I have seen the claim from several sources though…
The sides are confusing on this and most every issue in America today. There are the sides taken by the political parties and blasted full-volume through various media entities. Separately, there is what thoughtful people, pro and con, honestly have to say. I don’t mean to imply that you are a GOP operative or dittohead.
When it spills, a lot of people are going to be financially hurt. Seismic activity is not unheard of along the route of the XL. Over 50 years an earthquake is sure to strike; imagine a dozen Kalamazoo spills simultaneously, in the farm belt. It wouldn’t matter who was on the hook for the cleanup- it’d be a disaster regardless.
Well, it actually is appropriate government action. The executive gets to approve or deny international projects like this. I can only speculate about Obama’s motives- maybe he has wanted to save it for a bargaining chip, but the GOP will never offer anything in return? Who knows though? Personally I think the pipeline should be rejected since it represents a huge threat for private foreign gain and practically nothing for us.
Under what alternate-reality laws of economics would this be possible? Shipping the oil via train has one cost. Shipping it via pipeline has a different, lower cost. The price to extract oil from different sources varies. Some sources of oil are profitable to extract, and others aren’t. The cost of shipping is one of the factors which determines whether an oil source is profitable or not. There are always going to be some marginal sources of oil which are slightly profitable when shipped cheaply, but slightly unprofitable when shipped expensively. If we build the pipeline, those marginal sources will be extracted, and if we don’t, they won’t.
He could hardly get more crap from the “pro-” side than he is now for delaying construction, so what possible motive could he have here?
In case you missed this pipeline spill on Saturday…
Up to 50,000 gallons of oil spilled in Yellowstone River; residents told not to drink water
It’s a bit difficult to clean up since much of the river is frozen! 42,000 gallons were spilled in 2011 affecting the same river.
Not piss off the labor union contingent of the Democratic party. Not piss off the majority of the country that believe it should be approved. Not piss off a key ally in the Canadians. He doesn’t want to make a decision because it will piss off someone that supports him. All I’m saying is that this isn’t really a complicated project. There is clearly enough information now (and has been for probably five years) to make a yes or no decision. If you’re never going to approve it, then the least you can do is turn it down. Why allow it to stay in limbo year after year under false pretenses?
I really don’t see how people can be blinded by this. How many years do you think it should take for a government to approve or deny a permit application? It’s been 7 years. Do you really think a pipeline is that complicated?
For reference, the Southern leg of TransCanada’s pipeline (wow the same boogeyman evil corporation), which doesn’t require presidential authorization, had Obama calling for bureaucrats to cut through red tape and expedite the construction link. You mean to tell me that the portion that has nothing to do with him has him running to take credit for it? No way, he really couldn’t be that pathetic of a bullshitter could he?
Is it because it goes above the Ogallala water aquifer? That’s a below ground aquifer covering 174 square miles and eight states with hundreds of pipelines and flowlines crossing above it. The idea that an above ground pipeline is going to penetrate a below ground water aquifer (which is in most places hundreds of feet below ground) and cause widespread pollution is fucking absurd. Obama could never get an actual scientist to say anything of the sort. The purported party of science wouldn’t ever let bullshit pseudoscience run the decision making process, would it?
All I’m saying is that the guy should stop pretending that this is just the state department running the normal review process? Grow a spine a make a decision. Even if the decision is to turn it down. How much time is an appropriate review process? It was proposed in 2008. Is there another decision making process of any type that the government has ever take more time to make a decision? This is a lie. If you’re against the pipeline (guys like Try2BComprehensive) don’t you at the very least agree that enough time has passed to turn down the pipeline? Do you really support this type of sham of a process?
So to be clear, all I am saying is that if he will never approve it, then why doesn’t he turn it down? Who can really be against that?
For one thing, even though I’m repeating myself, comparing the XL to existing crude pipelines isn’t accurate. The XL isn’t different simply in scale, but in kind. It is a dilbit pipeline.
It has been pointed out that the aquifer varies greatly in depth, emerging to the surface in some places. Maybe the aquifer could get polluted here, maybe it couldn’t there. But anywhere this pipe breaks open is going to be the scene of an unprecedented disaster, aquifer or not. What benefit to the American people does the XL provide that outweighs the near certain chance of such a disaster over the lifetime of this project? How do we justify that? Because we’re allies with Canada? Sorry, but being allies is a two-way relationship, we don’t have any obligation to let Canada walk all over us and dump their trash all over our countryside. I’ve already suggested that the proponents of this project arrange for the sludge to be refined to crude before crossing the border. That would go a long way towards making me too busy to bother with this issue, though you would still have to explain what America gets out of this deal.
Oh I don’t know, the GOP has been blocking everything to do with the Obama administration since the day he was elected. Maybe Obama just really enjoys sticking this particular hot poker up their asses.
But look, I voted for him because he was way better than Mitt Romney, not because he was me. I don’t think the process or Obama is really the heart of the matter though. For a guy with such a dim view of politics, you seem to have an uncharacteristicly holy standard of conduct in this area of decision-making. Seems there should be bigger fish to fry.
Whose refineries is this oil being sold to again?
Ferry terminal being built in British Columbia subject to ‘Buy America’ rules Link
I could post all sorts of softwood lumber links as well about how well America lives up to this two way relationship crap.
We’ll be left with an unusually large pile of toxic tailings for generations. I question whether this is, in the long run, a profitable venture for the US.
Both sides do it? Maybe we need to work on the relationship before we commit to this leaky pipe up our hinterlands.
In addition to the 50,000 gallon Yellowstone river spill, we also have a 3 million gallon spill of brine in North Dakota.
Nearly 3M Gallons of Brine Spill; ND Oil Boom’s Largest Leak
Out of curiosity, do you find the existence and possibility of oil spills compelling enough to not allow pipelines to be built for oil transport?
Not necessarily, but the risks should evaluated and soberly considered and pipelines not approved just because the oil money says so. The 50,000 gallon spill was a 12 inch pipe. How big is the Keystone pipe(s)? What is the possible environmental impact? What’s the benefit to the U.S. compared to the potential cost of a disaster?
36 inches, and it is under high pressure, temperature and abrasion because it is piping dilbit.
But they’re already pissed off by his delay/fence-sitting. So I ask again: how does this help?
The Obama administration rejected the application in 2012. TransCanada came back with a revised application (including route modifications). It is that new application, submitted less than three years ago, that is the subject of the current debate.
Also, yes, an 875-mile pipeline carrying dilbit across major water resources and seismically-active areas is very complicated. Since the Kalamazoo spill, we’ve learned we don’t even have much knowledge of how to clean up dilbit spills well, because it turns out they behave very differently from regular crude.