![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
ricomsmith77.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsOriginally posted by ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
ricomsmith77 at "The Obama Keystone Pipe Dream: Why Building It Will Be A Nightmare"
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!
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!
RE: Not a typo.
Date: 15/11/14 21:56 (UTC)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.
Date: 15/11/14 23:30 (UTC)I'm not sure, maybe because the refineries and shipping are/were already there? The report is available online, if you find out anything, I'd be curious to hear what you find out.
and they have way more OFFICE personnel then that; but then we have some pretty powerful unions out here. :D
And conversely, maybe Koch Industries could count their Congressional lobbyists as Keystone pipeline personnel! HIP HIP HOORAY FOR THE JOB CREATORS!
RE: Not a typo.
Date: 16/11/14 14:26 (UTC)Because that oil would be refined and shipped regardless of construction of this pipeline. There aren't a lot of refineries with extra capacity for heavy oil after all, meaning this is a debate about how to get the oil to the refinery. Section ES.5.5.2 of the report states: (http://keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov/documents/organization/205719.pdf)
Based on information and analysis about the North American crude transport infrastructure (particularly the proven ability of rail to transport substantial quantities of crude oil profitably under current market conditions, and to add capacity relatively rapidly) and the global crude oil market, the draft Supplemental EIS concludes that the approval or denial of the proposed Project is unlikely to have a substantial impact on the rate of development in the oil sands, or the amount of heavy crude oil refined in the Gulf Coast area.
...
if the proposed Project were denied but other proposed new and expanded pipelines go forward, production could decrease by approximately 0.4 to 0.6 percent of total WCSB production by 2030.
This oil is going to be used, the question is whether to ship it by pipeline or rail. I'd vote for pipelines, they're safer and take less energy, but it seems that different criteria are being used to make this call.