When a pipeline has already pretty much ruined the Kalamazoo River, for just one example, why should I believe that Keystone XL will be any safer?
New technology.
Double walled.
Sensors.
Automatic shut off valves.
Also, the alternative technology is using trains, which involves the risk of spills due to train wrecks, old leaky tank cars, or just carelessness in the loading/unloading process.
Or, of course, the complete destruction of the core of a small town.
I saw this this morning:
Its complicated but in terms of deaths, rail is worse it seems. But rail is ramping up due to lack of pipeline capacity. So we can expect bigger trains and bigger spills.
But…that doesn’t make any sense. I thought we wanted safe transportation of fossil fuels. 
Gas is already down to really cheap levels now, I’m so glad Obama is our president and can take credit for it!
Indeed - it only has to go down thirty cents a gallon or so, in constant dollars, before it is as cheap as when he became President. Although, to be fair, Obama did finally figure out that frackingis a good thing.
Regards,
Shodan
In other words, this commodity is now almost as cheap as it was at the peak of the worst recession since the Great Depression.
Thanks. But the cite does say pipelines are worse than rail for spills. And bigger trains might lead to bigger individual spills, but not to a larger fraction of the transported oil being spilled. And newer tanker cars are safer than older ones.
The jokes on me. I started this thread assuming Keystone would easily pass through Congress.
Turns out they were one vote short.
We can come back and do this thread again next spring.
This. Thanks for all the cites while I was out of town, folks! 
You’re not from around here, are you?
President Obama is reportedly planning to veto legislation to approve the Keystone XL pipeline.
What, if anything, is the principled reason for him to block the pipeline? If there is none, what is the political calculus? What does he gain from going against public opinion?
ISTM that oil from the Athabasca oil sands will be sold on the world market regardless of whether it goes to US refineries and US consumers, and is currently being transported to the US via rail. The straightforward economic argument in favor of the pipeline seems overwhelming (1/3 the cost to transport via pipeline vs rail) and it seems like rail is quite prone to accidents resulting in death and spills. Anyone want to make the administration’s case?
Hopefully it’s because he doesn’t want to make things immensely worse for his children, any potential grandchildren, and indeed anyone who will have to live through the consequences.
Keep the oil in the soil, and the coal in the hole(s).
But keeping the oil in the soil isn’t on the menu of options. The oil is coming out of the soil and being exported among other places to the US via rail, which is expensive and dangerous. The menu of options is to transport the oil from the soil via rail or via pipeline.
This is what evironmentalists don’t seem to be able to grasp. The oil is going to get pumped. There is too much money at stake for this not to happen, and Obama can’t do a thing to change that. The only questions are:
(1) Does it go to the US? If not, it will almost certainly end up going to China.
(2) Pipeline or trains? Pipelines are safer & cheaper than trains.
Just curious but does Canada lack the refining capacity to keep the oil (and jobs) in Canada ?
I realize it is lower gravity crude but I would have assumed that some thought would have been given to this problem not long after the discoveries were made.