"The Obama Keystone Pipe Dream: Why Building It Will Be A Nightmare"

[ricomsmith77.livejournal.com]

Originally posted by ricomsmith77 at "The Obama Keystone Pipe Dream: Why Building It Will Be A Nightmare"

Earlier today, the U.S. House of "so-called" Representatives passed legislation for building the controversial Keystone Pipeline....an oil pipeline system that carries dirty crude oil sands from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico.



It runs from the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin in Alberta, Canada to refineries in Illinois and the Gulf Coast of Texas, also to oil tank farms and oil pipeline distribution center in Cushing, Oklahoma.   In addition to the synthetic crude oil and diluted bitumen from the oil sands of Canada, it also carries light crude oil from the Williston Basin region in Montana and North Dakota.

Approval for the controversial pipeline, which easily passed the House by a 252-161 vote, comes as Democratic Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana battles runoff challenger Republican Congressman Bill Cassidy, who sponsored the House bill. Both candidates are taking credit for influencing the Keystone vote, which is popular in the oil-producing state they represent.  Now the bill moves to the Senate, which is still under Democratic control until January, for a vote.  If it passes there, then it heads to the President's desk for his signature.

But will he sign it?


The problem with this pipeline is that the oil that it will carry has been proven to be unsafe for the environment, due to the consistancy of the oil sands.  The main issues are the risk of oil spills along the pipeline, which would traverse highly sensitive terrain, and 17% higher greenhouse gas emissions from the extraction of oil sands compared to extraction of conventional oil. Environmentalists have consistantly been warning Washington DC of the dangers this pipeline could create, but the Republicans and members of the Oil Industry argues that it would help create more jobs and would bring down the costs of energy here in the U.S.

But that simply isn't true.

Building the pipeline will create jobs in the U.S., but not as many as the 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.  This oil would not be used here in the U.S., but would be shipped to other places around the world.....so it would do nothing to bring down our costs of crude oil at all.

So why build it you ask?


Well if we weren't so dependent on oil so much, we probably wouldn't need to.  The world hasn't completely gotten off the grid, so to speak, so we have to maintain ourselves by continuing to use this stuff.

A few days ago, Obama and the Chinese President agreed to a groundbreaking new climate change deal.  Under the agreement, the United States would cut its 2005 level of carbon emissions by 26-28% before the year 2025. China would peak its carbon emissions by 2030 and will also aim to get 20% of its energy from zero-carbon emission sources by the same year.  This is great for the environment, being that these two countries lead the world in carbon pollution.

But of course, the Republicans complained that Obama didn't have the authority to make such a deal and that they would try and fight him on it.

Quoth the raven, Senator Mitch McConnell:

“Our economy can’t take the president’s ideological war on coal and oil that will increase the squeeze on middle-class families and struggling miners,”

If the Republican's think that this is a war on coal and oil and the middle class....


....then they can keep on pipe dreaming!

Comments

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

Heh. Funny map. "Patoka" means "the duck" in my language.

[luvdovz.livejournal.com]

From what I'm hearing, the Republicans mainly complained that Obama had "bowed" to his Chinese counterpart again. Or something.

[abomvubuso.livejournal.com]

the president’s ideological war on coal and oil

Here's one example where ideology is not necessarily a bad thing. ;)

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

And an example of "ideology" being used as a pejorative when it's a neutral term. Weasel words.

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

Seriously! A challenge, when was the last time you saw the word NOT used as a pejorative?...a text book doesn't count :D

[abomvubuso.livejournal.com]

I've seen it not being used as a pejorative, but you probably haven't heard of those places because they're not American. And as we know, anything outside of America is just a figment of our imagination ;)

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

I have 5 degrees, including a Philosophy degree and two post-graduate degrees. Text books are pretty real for me :P

I use it to describe myself a lot. I am "ideologically opposed" to many things. Although, I grant that most people use the phrase "personal philosophy" to mean ideology a lot these days.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

And I thought this pipeline was about enslaving the American people under the boot of the international conspirators, aka the shapeshifting lizardoid Illuminati.

[garote]

You want to be sickened, you should check out how they actually extract this stuff. Basically they scrape up the tundra like a thin carpet, hoover the sands out, process and dump them nearby, and leave the landscape to fester. It's astoundingly destructive.

But if you don't have to responsible for returning the land to a previous state, you can make a decent profit off the process. And so some gnarly collective of fucks is doing it.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

I've watched some of those surface gold mining realty shows. You'll see where miners from nearly 100 60 years ago tore open the ground, and when they're finished, it looks like the lunar surface now. Due to gold prices increasing four years ago, miners were going back to hoover any missed gold. James Hanson has written, if the co2 from the oil sands is introduced into the system, it's game over for even trying to reign in the worst effects of man caused climate change. (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/10/opinion/game-over-for-the-climate.html?_r=0)

The tar sands contain enough carbon — 240 gigatons — to add 120 p.p.m. Tar shale, a close cousin of tar sands found mainly in the United States, contains at least an additional 300 gigatons of carbon. If we turn to these dirtiest of fuels, instead of finding ways to phase out our addiction to fossil fuels, there is no hope of keeping carbon concentrations below 500 p.p.m. — a level that would, as earth’s history shows, leave our children a climate system that is out of their control.

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

I go camping in places that 150 years ago were old growth forests, and haven't been mined in 100 years, that used the process of washing off the top layer of soil to collect the alluvial gold. They still haven't recovered and are probably 3-400 years off getting back to what they were; they're essentially now just dust bowls with some straggly, hardy trees growing in them. No topsoil whatsoever. I'm looking into buying old mining land now to rehabilitate.

[garote]

Oh but herp a derp deeerrrp PROFITS TO BE MADE derp deerp ha-derp CHINA NEEDS OIL durp hyeeerp derp derp WHO CARES IT'S CANADA derp ga-durrrrp fneeeerrrrp derp derp

[cindyanne1.livejournal.com]

I still say we should switch 100% to ethanol and soy diesel. But I guess we can't have farmers making any money off fuel (which, I'm sure the price per bushel wouldn't really change all that much) when there are other pockets to line.

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

And then, there's the unintended consequence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_effect) of ethanol production taking crop territories and thus driving food prices up (http://edition.cnn.com/2012/08/20/opinion/mcdonald-corn-ethanol/). Which arguably causes such turmoil (http://www.economist.com/node/21550328) like the Arab Spring, and other sorts of political instability.

[ofbg.livejournal.com]

It's called burning our food supply.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Pretty much.

Wait, what?

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

"only 50 workers would be required to operate the pipeline."

That has got to be a typo. I would really like to know how that number was arrived at.
Dude, even if the don't count the people employed at the shipping point, the end point (refineries)
how on earth are 50 people going to monitor a pipeline that runs that long, thru that many states?

Not a typo.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Not a typo.

Fox News host: Keystone pipeline would create 'tens of thousands of jobs.' (http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/nov/11/anna-kooiman/fox-news-host-keystone-pipeline-would-create-tens-/)
Rated mostly false.

There would only be 35 full time permanent jobs. 15 contractor positions.

RE: Not a typo.

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

OK, even accepting that there will only be 15 people fully employed in maintenance,inspection, and upkeep on the pipeline itself*; why are not the jobs at the shipping point, and at the refineries counted? I mean, seriously, there won't be increased employment at the production end?

One positive aspect, these are shovel ready jobs that aren't paid for by the government ;)
(the 15K-45K, (depending on whose analysis you accept) temporary jobs)

*Honestly, I know people who do inspection and maintenance on water, and natural gas pipe lines here in So Cal, and they have way more OFFICE personnel then that; but then we have some pretty powerful unions out here. :D

RE: Not a typo.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

There is now way in fuck that you can manage/maintain a civil engineering project of that size with only 50 people.

Shift requirements and supernumeraries alone make it unmanageable. 15 guys for 1,179 miles of pipeline? I suppose I could buy that as far as "control room staff" are concerned but maintenance, up-keep, pump station staff, admin, etc? Not happening.

[ricomsmith77.livejournal.com]

Those numbers come directly from the US State Department.....they have been doing analysis on this for years now. I thought it was a joke too, but I fact checked it a few times and that is what they estimate.

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

I would would be curious as to how the State Dept came up with it will only take 15 people for even just the inspection on that much pipeline.

[cheezyfish.livejournal.com]

I want to know why the State Dept is doing any sort of analysis on a pipeline. Where is the DOE's analysis?

[mikeyxw.livejournal.com]

This is pretty typical of infrastructure projects though. Once a bridge is built, it doesn't take a lot of people to maintain it. This does little to deter people, including Pres. Obama, from talking about the jobs created during the construction phase of such projects.

[flaming-goat.livejournal.com]

China would peak its carbon emissions by 2030 and will also aim to get 20% of its energy from zero-carbon emission sources by the same year.

They were already going to do that based on that's when they expect their population and economic growth to level off anyways. And they were planning on getting at least 20% of their energy from nuclear by then anyways. So, this "deal" requires nothing from them and makes us kill our economy in exchange. Brilliant.

The pipeline has been in limbo for years for no good reason. Obama could have either signed off on it or killed it back when the environmental impact report was done years ago. This boondoggle smacks of politicians trying not to resolve it so they can keep milking the political gain from it as long as possible.