The Canadian oil pipeline faces 2 lobby groups in bed with American politicians

The first is the Green movement and the second is the American oil interests.

The American oil producers don't want the competition and I think they are getting a free ride in this

Arn

Business leaders are putting the pressure on Obama.
http://www.ctvnews.ca/busin...l-pipeline-1.1493242

Latest move in pipeline chess game: U.S. State Department releases Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement on Keystone XL Pipeline Project. As reported in the Politics section of NBC News online:


A new State Department report on the proposed Keystone XL oil pipeline finds that the project would have a minimal impact on the environment, an assessment likely to increase pressure on the White House to approve it. But the report sets no deadline for doing so.

Given this evaluation of environmental impact, President Barack Obama and his administration will face increased pressure to approve the project, which enjoys widespread support among Republicans, and some measure of support among Democrats and allies of the administration, like labor unions. . . .

"I will not be satisfied with any analysis that does not accurately document what is really happening on the ground when it comes to the extraction, transport, refining, and waste disposal of dirty, filthy tar sands oil," said Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., chairwoman of the Senate panel that oversees environmental issues. . . .

Just some excerpts.. get the complete NBC News report here:
http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews....onmental-impact?lite


Section 4.14 deals with the project's impact in terms of greenhouse gases and climate change. But as of yet, I have not taken the time to try to get a sense of any direction from this one section, which is 70 pages.

Online access to the complete State Department report:
http://keystonepipeline-xl..../finalseis/index.htm

Basically it says that the pipeline itself will not contribute to carbon emissions because the oil will be shipped and used anyway, pipeline or not.

It's getting easier all the time. I got five emails today on Keystone three of them were anti keystone petitions. All I had to do was click them. They already had all of my information. Click! and my name was on the petition. Two thousand temporary jobs putting a pipeline in for the dirtiest oil on the planet going through a large water source with pipelines that have the worlds worst record of leaks so that we can ship the final product overseas where it will be burnt and contaminate the planet even more. What's not to like? I think that I just learned that the state department is just as influenced by lobbiests and special interests as the rest of the government.

[This message has been edited by dratts (edited 01-31-2014).]

Which water source?

Don't worry guys, Dratts will save us, he clicked things on the internet.



Brad

Maryjane, I don't recall but I remember that there were people who were concerned that it was their only source and that it was a major one could be lost. I'll google it. that;s what I always do when I want info. Fats, I knew when I posted this last one that my negs would probably go up. I really don't care any more. neg away. I always say what I think and when someone convinces me that I'm in error that's when I change my opinion. Not because I get belittled and made fun of.

[This message has been edited by dratts (edited 02-01-2014).]

quote Originally posted by dratts: It's getting easier all the time. I got five emails today on Keystone three of them were anti keystone petitions. All I had to do was click them. They already had all of my information. Click! and my name was on the petition. Two thousand temporary jobs putting a pipeline in for the dirtiest oil on the planet going through a large water source with pipelines that have the worlds worst record of leaks so that we can ship the final product overseas where it will be burnt and contaminate the planet even more. What's not to like? I think that I just learned that the state department is just as influenced by lobbiests and special interests as the rest of the government.

No offense but get your facts strait. Some of the crude in California is actually worse.

http://www.mysanantonio.com...ar-sands-4285065.php

If the US is so concerned about carbon footprint, then when are you all going to can you coal power plants which dump an incredible amount of carbon etc. in to the atmosphere? The oilsands foot print is a fraction of this.

[This message has been edited by Sourmug (edited 02-01-2014).]

I'll save you the trouble. It was the Sand Hills and Ogalla Aquifer. The original route of Keystone cut across both, (mostly in Nebraska) which is why the Nebraskan governor opposed the pipeline--but fall of 2012, a new and longer route was proposed moving the path east of the aquifer and out of the sand hills.
US State Dept signed on to this one, did the study now posted here, and Nebraska's governor dropped his opposition to Keystone early in 2013.
Obama will approve Keystone at some point, using it as a trade-off for some other environmental proposals he deems more important--most of them in democratic heavy California. Probably won't happen until after mid-term elections are over but it's pretty much a done deal, and for the most part, the pipeline is already built.
The only leg not yet constructed is the extreme northern leg.

[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 02-01-2014).]

quote Originally posted by Sourmug: No offense but get your facts strait. The crude in California is actually worse. If the US is so concerned about carbon footprint, then when are you all going to can you coal power plants which dump an incredible amount of carbon etc. in to the atmosphere? The oilsands foot print is a fraction of this.

Didn't know that California crude was worse. I'm anti coal too. Do you have information on California crude that I've missed? edited: I read the link that you posted on Cal crude. Very informative. I believe that the point of the link was that Ca. should alleviate the problems with their dirty oil, not promote it and that makes sense to me.

[This message has been edited by dratts (edited 02-01-2014).]

Link added to post above.

So if you shut down the coal plants, then what will replace them? If they are just taken off line, then what happens to the economy?

quote Originally posted by dratts: Ogallala water source for millions.

See my earlier post.
The portion in this image labeled "one alternate route studied by State Dept" is where the pipeline will now run. (Actually, that's an old image and the route will be a little further east than even the one shown)
The dotted line thru Texas, which at the time of the this image-- was not done. Now, it is, except the last few miles down near Port Arthur Texas. It runs not far from where I live and they're all done with it.


If your petitions are still claiming otherwise, they are either lying or simply haven't kept up with events for the last 13 months.

[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 02-01-2014).]

quote Originally posted by Sourmug: Link added to post above. So if you shut down the coal plants, then what will replace them? If they are just taken off line, then what happens to the economy?

We don't just shut down. I'm not that stupid. We work on replacing fossil fuels with renewables. That's what will have to happen eventually anyway. It's not going to happen overnight, but the longer we drag our feet the more harm we cause and the more it will cost. I'm enough of a technology freak to believe that we have a good chance of coming through this phase of our energy evolution. I also believe that the fossil fuel industry wants to wring out as much profit as it can regardless of the consequences. It's corporate greed. Corporations don't have to be that way. There's nothing that says corporations can't be good too.

[This message has been edited by dratts (edited 02-01-2014).]

Rail shipments of crude have certainly been trouble-free........

quote Originally posted by dratts: Two thousand temporary jobs putting a pipeline in for the dirtiest oil on the planet going through a large water source with pipelines that have the worlds worst record of leaks so that we can ship the final product overseas where it will be burnt and contaminate the planet even more.

Wow ! That Koolaid is potent.

quote Originally posted by maryjane: Which water source?

quote Originally posted by dratts: Maryjane, I don't recall but I remember that there were people who were concerned that it was their only source and that it was a major one could be lost.

For such an important topic dear to your heart I would have thought that you would have kept abreast of the news. If you really cared, you would know that the the locals who relied upon that water rerouted the pipeline to pacify any concerns. Two years ago ?

quote Originally posted by dratts: I think that I just learned that the state department is just as influenced by lobbiests and special interests as the rest of the government.

No silly. They report directly to the "idiot in chief".

quote Originally posted by dratts: We need to work on replacing fossil fuels with renewables. That's what will have to happen eventually anyway.

We have 300 years of fossil fuel supply reliabilty according to the latest "science". Should I buy the newest green home A/C unit even though my 35 year old A/C unit works too damn good ? When will the "green leaders" abandon their fossil contributing life styles ? (Why does Al Gore still commute in a fuel guzzling private jet.) You haven't got your Tesla. Why not a Prius ?

quote Originally posted by dratts: It's not going to happen overnight, but the longer we drag our feet the more harm we cause and the more it will cost. I'm enough of a technology freak to believe that we have a good chance of coming through this phase of our energy evolution.

Harm, . Boo hoo. No sympathy for the short term harm to the economically disadvantaged from mandates ? Fossil fuel is the best bang for the buck. What harm are you speaking about ? Man has been adapting to the environment for ages. Nothing new here.

quote Originally posted by dratts: The only benefit I see to anyone in the US is to the refineries that are apparently underutilized. The US isn't going to get anything out of this except the polution from the refineries. Then the end product gets shipped out of the country.

We will not get nothing from it ? Pollution from the refineries ? Bette our refineries than theirs.
Pollution my azz. Sweat is pollution. Nice buzz word.

quote Originally posted by dratts: The only benefit I see to anyone in the US is to the refineries that are apparently underutilized. The US isn't going to get anything out of this except the polution from the refineries. Then the end product gets shipped out of the country.

One word my man--plastic. (what movie is that line from?)
It's everywhere, and it's made from oil.
Not undeutilized, and the fact is, I know of at least 3 big refineries on the Gulf coast that are in the midst of massive multi billion $ expansions to be able to use the tar sands and Bakken shale oil. Each, is in their olefins sections.
Olefins = products like polypropylene-- better known as plastics, as well as propane. "Dirty" oil is perfect for plastic manufacturing, and using this oil for that purpose frees up more sweet crude and low sulphur crude for gasoline and diesel refining. Oil that was previously used in the olefins units.

http://www.hydrocarbonproce...ion-after-study.html
http://www.ogj.com/articles...plant-expansion.html

ExxonMbil will use both crude from Keystone and natural gas from another new pipeline for feedstock for it's olefin expansions at Baytown and Mont Belview.
https://www.fiero.nl/forum/F...HTML/098195.html#p28

[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 02-01-2014).]

Sorry Cliff, I respect you a lot, but I'm pretty sure that we are so far apart on energy issues, particularly fossil fuels that we will never see eye to eye. I am still always interested in what you have to say though. I know that with your profession you will naturally have the beliefs that you hold and that is completely understandable. Having come from a solar industry background I will see things differently. I have never said that we should dump fossil fuel immediately or completely. I know that would be catastrophic. I often go back and look to see if I have rated someone when I see that we disagree. I have had both you and maryjane rated as positive for a long time and I don't rate that many people either positive or negative. Thank you both for your posts. If I never heard anything but support for my views I wouldn't have the complete picture.

[This message has been edited by dratts (edited 02-01-2014).]

quote Originally posted by dratts: I know that with your profession you will naturally have the beliefs that you hold and that is completely understandable.

Actually you would be wrong. The oil fields have always been a "boom and bust" vocation. I have seen it come, I have seen it go. I am still here. I make a wage and I have from other vocations when I have had to. My experience would make me greatly qualified in some areas of the Green industry.

quote Originally posted by cliffw: Actually you would be wrong. The oil fields have always been a "boom and bust" vocation. I have seen it come, I have seen it go. I am still here. I make a wage and I have from other vocations when I have had to. My experience would make me greatly qualified in some areas of the Green industry.

Guess I miss judged your situation. Anyway, much respect from me. I would love to hear that you had moved into in the green industry and were making a good living. I know that you are just as genuine in your views as I am in mine.

[This message has been edited by dratts (edited 02-01-2014).]

Don't burn oil, don't burn coal, don't burn wood, don't burn natural gas, you start running out of things to heat your home in Idaho. Can't use electric to power your car because electricity is created from burning oil, gas and usehighly ungreen lead batteries.

Just put up some wind turbins which kill birds.

quote Originally posted by jaskispyder: I would love cheaper gas, but in reality, it hasn't been cheap for quite some time and it won't be anymore. The demand will outpace supply no matter what is done.

According to this calculator that claims to use the same consumer price index data from the bls. That chart is bs. Acoording to their calculations something that was 1.84 in 2008 should be 1.99 adjusted for inflation
http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/

[This message has been edited by gtjoe (edited 02-01-2014).]

quote Originally posted by Old Lar: Don't burn oil, don't burn coal, don't burn wood, don't burn natural gas, you start running out of things to heat your home in Idaho. Can't use electric to power your car because electricity is created from burning oil, gas and usehighly ungreen lead batteries. Just put up some wind turbins which kill birds.

I'm not going to give up any of those energy sources at this time. I'm looking ahead. I haven't been able to make up my mind on fracking for natural gas. It seems like it might be the best transitional fuel for now, but there seem to be issues. Being a transparency advocate I think that we should force them to list the toxic and carcinogenic chemicals they use while fracking. The last I heard they are looking for alternative chemicals. Teslas don't use lead acid batteries. We should always be looking for ways to lower the bird kill from wind generators. I have no idea how significant the bird kill is. All electricity doesn't come from the sources that you listed. More and more of it is coming from clean renewable sources. Although I still have you rated as neutral I should consider raising that to a positive.

[This message has been edited by dratts (edited 02-01-2014).]

quote Originally posted by dratts: I'm not going to give up any of those energy sources at this time. I'm looking ahead. I haven't been able to make up my mind on fracking for natural gas. It seems like it might be the best transitional fuel for now, but there seem to be issues. Being a transparency advocate I think that we should force them to list the toxic and carcinogenic chemicals they use while fracking. The last I heard they are looking for alternative chemicals. Teslas don't use lead acid batteries. We should always be looking for ways to lower the bird kill from wind generators. I have no idea how significant the bird kill is. All electricity doesn't come from the sources that you listed. More and more of it is coming from clean renewable sources. Although I still have you rated as neutral I should consider raising that to a positive.

OK man, I'm calling bs here. Sorry, but this just screams it.

You go around claiming that "green" energy is the bee's knees, and that anything else is horrible for any number of reasons. And you list those reasons constantly.

BUT

If anyone brings up common issues with "green" technology (killing birds for example) your response is

quote I have no idea how significant the bird kill is.

So, you are pushing something that you don't really know a lot about?

Brad

quote Originally posted by dratts: I'm not going to give up any of those energy sources at this time.

And there's the issue. People screaming for alternative energy aren't willing to find alternatives for themselves.
I respect your decision to use fossil fuels, but since you don't want to give up those energy sources do you at least buy carbon credits to offset your destruction of the environment?

quote Originally posted by Fats: So, you are pushing something that you don't really know a lot about? Brad

Did you forget the part where I said that we should try to mitigate bird kills? Just because I don't know the numbers doesn't mean that I'm unconcerned. Wind energy is only one of the green energys I look at. It is efficient and economical. Like all energy sources it isn't 100% benign.

Looks to me like they are simply going to take this issue off the table before the elections.

quote Originally posted by Old Lar: Don't burn oil, don't burn coal, don't burn wood, don't burn natural gas, you start running out of things to heat your home in Idaho. Can't use electric to power your car because electricity is created from burning oil, gas and usehighly ungreen lead batteries. Just put up some wind turbins which kill birds.

Not only do they kill birds, there are apparent effects on humans as well:
http://www.sunnewsnetwork.c...health/3119768397001


http://www.cfp.ca/content/59/5/473.full

It's easy to simply say "use alternative power sources" however, these are not ready for mainline power generation. There are years of development needed before they are ready. All of the alternatives that the "greens" put forward are expensive and generally ineffective on a large scale.

http://www.naturalnews.com/...bines_abandoned.html

incidentally, the argument that oil is all about greedy corporations is irrelevant. In my profession, we are forced to comply to LEED green building standards which look good on paper. The problem is that this too has become big business with thousands of "green" companies and "green individuals" capitalizing on the "sustainability" fear wagon. The LEED program results in building design being driven by the pursuit of LEED certification for bronze, silver, gold or platinum. Thus there is the purchasing of LEED points by installing systems that in the end cost money with little real benefit to the building owner. No one takes into account the carbon footprint of the manufacture and installation of these systems. Any competent designer already designs buildings with a eye to common sense energy efficiency.

There's plenty of greed to go around.

[This message has been edited by Sourmug (edited 02-01-2014).]

quote Originally posted by Sourmug: Not only do they kill birds, there are apparent effects on humans as well: http://www.sunnewsnetwork.c...health/3119768397001 http://www.cfp.ca/content/59/5/473.full It's easy to simply say "use alternative power sources" however, these are not ready for mainline power generation. There are years of development needed before they are ready. All of the alternatives that the "greens" put forward are expensive and generally ineffective on a large scale. http://www.naturalnews.com/...bines_abandoned.html incidentally, the argument that oil is all about greedy corporations is irrelevant. In my profession, we are forced to comply to LEED green building standards which look good on paper. The problem is that this too has become big business with thousands of "green" companies and "green individuals" capitalizing on the "sustainability" fear wagon. The LEED program results in building design being driven by the pursuit of LEED certification for bronze, silver, gold or platinum. Thus there is the purchasing of LEED points by installing systems that in the end cost money with little real benefit to the building owner. No one takes into account the carbon footprint of the manufacture and installation of these systems. Any competent designer already designs buildings with a eye to common sense energy efficiency. There's plenty of greed to go around.

As someone who had to deal with ridiculous regulations on a regular basis, I've learned to be extremely skeptical of anything the "greenies" push on us.

We've had to install special parts that were "greener" in that they were made to degrade over time. However, the parts had to be shipped around the world creating more pollution, and they wore out twice as fast, making them less efficient, cost twice as much, and put a company in the US out of business, and I'm betting that the manufacturer created more pollution making them in China than their American counterpart. And I've found this to be true of a LOT of the green choices.

Brad

http://www.troyrecord.com/o...erking-canada-around

quote Originally posted by Red88FF: Looks to me like they are simply going to take this issue off the table before the elections.

There are about a dozen other impact studies from different state and federal agencies that are due out in the next 90 days. They will make no decision until those studies and reports are released and analyzed and balanced against each other and yes, probably won't make any decision until after mid term elections.

[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 02-03-2014).]

quote Originally posted by dratts: I would love to hear that you had moved into in the green industry and were making a good living.

Green is not ready for prime time, supply wise or vocation wise. Green wiped out two jobs (or more) for every job it created in Europe. My job in the oilfields is just one of many vocations in the oilfields. Green is not so rich, many being temporary construction type jobs.

quote Originally posted by dratts: All electricity doesn't come from the sources that you listed. More and more of it is coming from clean renewable sources.

How much is more and more, nation wide ? How much more from your power provider ? What ever the percentage, it is because it is being forced upon us.
What renewable resources ? Wind, solar, tidal ? Surely the greenies are not behind nuclear. One accident, no matter how small, will greatly affect the environment and the public perception of instant ramifications, unlike much later fear mongered CO² supposed changes.

quote Originally posted by dratts: I haven't been able to make up my mind on fracking for natural gas. It seems like it might be the best transitional fuel for now, but there seem to be issues. Being a transparency advocate I think that we should force them to list the toxic and carcinogenic chemicals they use while fracking.

Hmm. They are not fracking for natural gas (not my area of expertise in the oil fields) they are fracking for oil. I could be wrong. Gas rises. It is also under pressure, just as an aerosol can is. Punch a hole in a can or natural gas pocket and the gas is gonna come out. I suppose the gas would levitate above water pumped underground, maybe concentrate it together perhaps increasing pressure but why ? We have a glut of natural gas. We burn it off as waste as we drill, to prevent blow outs. Some wells are gas wells, some are oil wells. Many are oil and gas wells and they are the ones which blow out. Strictly oil wells have to be pumped to get the oil.
Add water to you Fiero oil and it will collect at the bottom of your oil pan, raising the oil level. The same thing happens in an oil well. Imagine your oil well pump is at ten thousand feet and you suck it dry. There is still oil below your pump. Pushing water into the well will bring that oil to the pump. Not only a lot cheaper than going back in and drilling deeper but pushed under pressure causes fizures/cracks in oil producing formations which release more oil which was previously unattainable. A lot is said, ballyhooed, about how we can produce as much oil as the middle east. They can frack too and again will have the upper hand. Fracking is more work, expense, and they do not need to.
AS far as the toxic and carcinogenic chemicals they use, I am unaware of that. I see no issue. We can close in a well. If they are trapped underground, so what ? We entertain storing radioactive waste underground. We already have many "disposal wells" where we have forced some undesirable wastes in empty wells. I think the chemicals they use accelerates the process. I am more worried about the amounts of water they need to use to frack, though that can be pumped back out and reused.
I think you have a "spill phobia", be it a pipeline or a cased well. My job relies heavily on hazard mitigation. A pipeline could be placed inside a secondary pipeline. Just as an air tank or propane tank has a pressure rating (much lower than need be), pipelines and cased oil wells are pressure tested/rated also.
Regarding your desire for transparency, you are not getting it from your government. Heh, this present regime lied from the get go, promising to be the most transparent administration in history, .
Abramson said earlier this month that Obama has been operating the "most secretive White House" she has covered during her time as a political journalist.
"I would say it is the most secretive White House that I have ever been involved in covering, and that includes — I spent 22 years of my career in Washington and covered presidents from President Reagan on up through now, and I was Washington bureau chief of the Times during George W. Bush's first time," she said in an interview with Al Jazeera.
Beginning with "Fast and Furious", to Benghazi, the IRS, the "keep your doctor", and the myriad of other issues with this regime, everything is suspect as a lie. The climate gurus lied too. Certifying knowingly suspect data. Perhaps they mean well and believe their bullzhit, but why the need to lie ? Why was the "Climate Exchange" all set up (controlled by liberal bastions) before there was public agreement that a problem does exist. Setting up the Climate Exchange took a lot of money. Do you not think there might be ulterior motives at work ?
I appreciate your concern. I believe I share it. Which doesn't mean I believe everything, or anything, I hear. Especially from politicians. They lie to us ! How is it that it is only the left wing politihacks push this agenda ? Politicians are just salesmen who try to sell their product. Neither party doubts the science of gravity. I think you bought the Global Warming scam hook, line, and sinker. That's ok. Don't make me pay for it.

quote Originally posted by maryjane: There are about a dozen other impact studies from different state and federal agencies that are due out in the next 90 days. They will make no decision until those studies and reports are released and analyzed and balanced against each other and yes, probably won't make any decision until after mid term elections.

We vowed to send a man to the Moon and did it in nine years. We have been studying this pipeline for (?) six years, ? Waiting on more studies from Keystone Cops (pun intended) who could not even set up a website, .

quote Originally posted by Sourmug: Are you implying that they are experiencing leaks on a regular basis?

On further research I can't find facts to back up my statement. I may (probably) owe a retraction of my statement. Sorry I hate giving out disinformation. I'm Not willing to give a blanket approval of pipeline safety in the area yet because I haven't found my original source and the sources that I did find seem to be industry originated. I'm not discounting industry reports.but they obviously have their bias just as the anti pipeline proponents do. Still trying to sort out facts from fiction. Thanks for your post Cliff. You always give me a look at it from the industry side that I believe is pretty unbiased. We are all subject to the influence of our information sources. I have previously stated my respect for you and it continues. Your positive rating from me is still firm and I can't imagine changing it.

[This message has been edited by dratts (edited 02-03-2014).]