Keystone Oil Pipeline

[_Brackite]

From Reuters:

U.S. review gives boost to Keystone oil pipeline

...

(Reuters) - The Keystone XL oil pipeline got a boost on Friday when the State Department said the project would not likely change the rate at which Canada's oil sands are developed, discounting fears it would be responsible for additional greenhouse gas emissions.

The report is far from the last word on Keystone. The environmental assessment must be finalized after the public comment. Then federal agencies will have 90 days to work with the State Department to determine whether the pipeline is in the national interest.

TransCanada Corp's proposed project is "unlikely to have a substantial impact" on development of Alberta's oil sands, the world's third-richest oil deposit, the Department said in a long-awaited report of more than 2,000 pages. It said the pipeline would result in "no substantial change in global greenhouse gas emissions."

The more than 800,000 barrel per day pipeline would have little environmental impact on most resources along its proposed route, provided the company takes certain measures to make it safer, the review added.

Supporters of the project, which would bring oil to Texas refineries, have dismissed concerns it would lead to additional greenhouse gas emissions, saying the oil would reach markets regardless of whether the pipeline is built.

President Barack Obama rejected the line in 2011 on concerns about its route through ecologically sensitive regions of Nebraska and after several high-profile spills on lines carrying Canadian crude.

Subsequently TransCanada issued a new route for the pipeline, which Friday's assessment took into consideration.

PUBLIC TO SHAPE DEBATE

The State Department stressed that the report did not judge the project. The public will have 45 days to comment during a review starting next Friday. A final decision by the Obama administration on the project that has been pending for more than 4-1/2 years is not expected until July or August.

TransCanada Corp Chief Executive Russ Girling said that construction of the pipeline could be complete by late 2014 or early 2105 if a final decision by the Obama administration comes by midsummer.

State Department Assistant Secretary Kerri-Ann Jones repeatedly refused to address whether the report offered support for building the pipeline, instead telling reporters on a press call that it would be premature to draw conclusions from the environmental assessment.

"We're really looking for the public debate at this point," Jones said. "We're looking for the feedback from the public to help us shape this going forward."

MOTHER NATURE

Many environmentalists oppose the project because, from wells to wheels, oil sands are more carbon-intensive than average crudes refined in the United States. They had been cheered by recent strong speeches by President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry on the need to take action on climate.

But one of Keystone's top critics said Friday's review was little different from a U.S. assessment in 2011.

"We're hearing the same rehashed arguments from the State Department about why a great threat to the climate is not a threat at all," said Bill McKibben, the founder of 350.org, an environmental group.

"Mother Nature filed her comments last year - the hottest year in American history; the top climate scientists in the U.S. have already chimed in. The rest of us have 45 days to make our voices heard, and we will," said McKibben, who has led protests at the White House.

Supporters of Keystone say it would provide thousands of jobs, drain a glut of domestic crude oil from the North Dakota oil boom and strengthen North American energy security.

"The Keystone XL pipeline will make more Canadian and U.S. oil available to us — oil that will not need to be imported from unfriendly places," said Karen Harbert, president of the U.S. Chamber's Institute for 21st Century Energy.

Construction of the pipeline would support 42,100 jobs across the United States, directly and indirectly, the review said. The operation of the pipeline would result in 35 to 50 permanent jobs, it added.

Canadian politicians and industry have ratcheted up lobbying in support of Keystone. The stakes have risen for the Canadian pipeline supporters as prices for oil sands crude have slumped, partly due to limited capacity to export the oil.

Ottawa has warned that the oil price discount is taking a toll on the national economy. Unidentified members of Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government told the Globe and Mail newspaper this week that a rejection of Keystone XL by Obama would seriously damage Canada-United States relations.

TransCanada's Girling has said the lengthy review process has helped ensure that the pipeline will be the safest pipeline ever built in the United States.

...

Link: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/ ... W620130301


I am all for the construction and building of the Keystone oil pipeline.

[_Brackite]

From Reuters:

U.S. lawmakers push bills to approve Keystone pipeline

...

(Reuters) - U.S. lawmakers in both chambers of Congress said Friday they are moving forward with bills introduced this week to pluck the power of approving the Keystone XL pipeline, which would run from Canada's oil sands to Texas, from the hands of the Obama administration.

Republican Representative Lee Terry from Nebraska introduced a bipartisan bill on Friday to approve TransCanada Corp's 800,000 barrels per day pipeline, which has been held up in the review process for more than four years.

Fred Upton, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce committee, said he expects the House will vote on the bill by the end of May.

The House measure is a companion to a bipartisan bill introduced on Thursday by Senators John Hoeven, a North Dakota Republican, and Max Baucus, a Montana Democrat.

Hoeven said he believes the Senate bill currently has more than 50 votes of the 60 needed for passage in the 100-seat chamber, and said he expected the bill would easily get more supporters.

If lawmakers don't force Obama's hand early, the president is expected to make a decision around August or later, after the State Department finalizes an environmental assessment of the project.

The Keystone decision is one of the first big tests for Obama in his second term on energy and environmental issues.

Proponents say the decision will show whether Obama supports the North American energy boom and the jobs it creates.

Opponents from environmental groups say it will show whether Obama is sincere in his promises to take steps to curb climate change.

The pipeline will carry crude oil from Canada's oil sands, a type of oil production environmental groups argue could accelerate climate change.

About 20 people holding soggy protest signs stood in the rain outside the compound housing the research laboratory near Chicago where Obama gave his first energy speech of his second term on Friday.

The White House has steadfastly declined to comment on the approval process, but on Friday a spokesman sought to downplay the importance of the decision.

"There have been thousands of miles of pipelines that have been built while President Obama has been in office, and I think the point is, is that it hasn't necessarily had a significant impact one way or the other on addressing climate change," spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters.

Earnest said there was "no question" that targeted investments to spur production of green energy or cut oil consumption would be more meaningful in the long term to cutting climate-changing greenhouse gases.

Obama on Friday proposed a $2 billion, 10-year research fund for cars and trucks that run on fuel other than gasoline.

"It's going to require some significant investments like the investments that we're talking about today for us to make progress on this," he said.

Link: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/ ... 5320130315



From The Salt Lake Tribune:

Jim Matheson backs bill to ‘green light’ Keystone pipeline

...

Washington • Rep. Jim Matheson joined a bipartisan group on Friday to push legislation that would automatically approve the Keystone Pipeline, a measure that is an end-run around President Barack Obama’s decision on the project and that overrides any pending environmental studies.

The Utah Democrat says federal reviews have already shown no substantive impact on the environment for the pipeline extending from Canada through the United States and that it’s time to stop the Obama administration’s delay on the project that could create upward of 100,000 indirect and direct jobs.

"If we want to stand up for moving our country forward for energy security and jobs, I’m going to be there," Matheson said after a news conference Friday announcing the legislation, which is likely to hit the fast-track in the GOP-controlled House.

The bill, which has also been introduced in the Senate, is similar to a measure that approved the Trans-Alaska Pipeline Authorization Act, which superceded any legal barriers. The legislation removes any need for a presidential permit and assumes all environmental reviews are completed.

"It’s called a green light," said House Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton, R-Mich.

...

Link: http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/5 ... n.html.csp

[_Kevin Graham]

I am all for the construction and building of the Keystone oil pipeline.

Why? The inflated jobs claim is a myth.

Reuters uncritically repeated the Ryan budget's assertion that constructing Keystone XL would create "20,000 direct jobs and 118,000 indirect jobs." Fox News host Sean Hannity later claimed the pipeline would create "nearly 140,000 jobs," while promoting the Ryan budget, which would likely raise taxes on the middle class:

But that number comes from inflating an analysis funded by TransCanada, the company trying to build the pipeline. That study, which has been called "dead wrong," "meaningless," and "flawed and poorly documented" by independent analysts, claimed that Keystone XL would create "118,000 person-years of employment." In other words, if one person holds a job for two years, that is counted as two "person-years of employment." And as a TransCanada spokesman eventually clarified to Huffington Post reporter Tom Zeller, the 118,000 figure already includes the 20,000 direct construction and manufacturing job-years that TransCanada claims will be created. Those numbers are also now outdated, as they included jobs associated with the southern portion of the pipeline, which is already under construction.

Independent analyses have found that the pipeline would create far fewer jobs. A 2011 report by Cornell University's Global Labor Institute found that the TransCanada estimate ignored the potential economic consequences of the pipeline -- which would carry tar sands oil from Canada to Gulf coast oil refineries primarily for export -- including the possibility of a spill. A State Department analysis found that the pipeline would create less than 4,000 construction jobs for the 1- to 2-year construction period, and only 35 permanent jobs. In total, that study found that Keystone XL would create 42,100 direct, indirect and induced average annual jobs during the 1- to 2-year construction period. As their exaggerated jobs claims have been exposed, conservative media have struggled to stay on the same page about how many jobs the pipeline would create:

The theory that Keystone would have an impact on gasoline prices has also been shown to be based on a poor understanding of how the market works.

The theory that Keystone would dramatically reduce our dependence on foreign oil has also been shown to be based on a poor understanding of how the market works.

So can you give me a good reason why we should dump so much money into this pipe dream?

[_Brackite]

Why? The inflated jobs claim is a myth.

Why should I believe the Politically ultra-liberal media "watchdog" group Media Matters over Democratic Congressman Matheson of Utah on this issue???

From realclearpolitics.com:

Keystone Pipeline Should Be a No-Brainer

...

While many have long seen America as the global bad boy, everybody likes Canada. If Uncle Sam tucks his pack of Marlboros under his T-shirt sleeve and plays by his own rules, the Canadian moose — or whatever their Uncle Sam equivalent is — always wears his blue blazer and school tie and does his chores without being asked. Canada is a global citizen, a good neighbor, a northern Puerto Rico with an EU sensibility that earns its gold stars from the United Nations every day.

This fact should have relevance below the 49th parallel. Right now, we’re all waiting for President Obama to decide on whether the Keystone pipeline can go forward. The pipeline would take oil from the tar sands of northern Alberta and deliver it to refineries in the U.S. It would extend all the way down to ports in Texas.

The prospect that Obama might approve the pipeline has environmentalists ready to handcuff themselves in a drum circle around anything that moves. For a while, they insisted that their core objections had to do with fears of spills in environmentally sensitive areas in Nebraska and elsewhere. As many suspected, this was always political cover. When the proposed route was changed to accommodate these concerns, opponents weren’t mollified. They were only further enraged.
Opponents of the pipeline want America to lead by example, and the pipeline is a step in the wrong direction. “Who wants the U.S. to facilitate the dirtiest extraction of the dirtiest crude from tar sands in Canada’s far north?” asks New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman.

Well, first of all, the Canadians do! Second, if we won’t, the Chinese would be happy to facilitate (a point Friedman ignores). Canada and China have made it clear that if the U.S. doesn’t allow the pipeline to go south, they’ll make one that goes west to the Canadian coast. In other words, the oil is going to be pumped out no matter what. Moreover, the risks of a bad spill increase if we don’t build the pipeline. Oil tankers heading to China are a bigger threat to the environment than a pipe over or through dry land to American refineries.

But my aim isn’t to defend the pipeline, which strikes me as a no-brainer in every way. It’s to make a larger point. If the idea is that America is somehow “leading by example” when it kills projects like Keystone, or cracks down on oil drilling on federal lands, as Obama has done, then we’re not fooling anyone — not even the Canadians!

All around the world, governments are expanding their oil and gas operations. In Russia, oil output keeps going up. Brazil is racing to expand offshore drilling. Mexico recently announced another huge oil field it won’t hesitate to develop. Experts are predicting a South Atlantic oil boom to rival the North Sea craze of the 1980s.

Meanwhile, thanks to technological advances, the International Energy Agency predicts the U.S. will be the world’s largest oil producer by 2017 and a net exporter by 2030. And again, Greens, who’ve insisted for years that we need to wean ourselves off foreign oil, aren’t cheered by the news. They’re ticked off that they lost another convenient talking point.

While it’s true that President Obama brags about how oil and gas production are up, his policies have nothing to do with it. A new report from the Congressional Research Service confirms: “All of the increased [oil] production from 2007 to 2012 took place on non-federal lands.” Since 2010, federal oil production is down 23 percent.

To what end? As global-warming activists will be the first to admit, global warming is global. Whatever CO2 we’ve declined to pump into the atmosphere has been more than replaced by emissions from growing economies in Asia. We could cut our emissions to nothing, and in a few years the increase in China’s emissions alone would replace them.

You know what else are global? Oil and gas markets. Whatever oil we’ve denied ourselves has been made up for by development in other countries. All that we’ve done is make oil prices higher than they needed to be and denied ourselves billions of dollars that would have stayed here rather than go to the Middle East. No country, save the U.S., seems at all interested in denying itself or the world much-needed economic growth by letting oil and gas sit in the ground.

In other words, when you’ve lost Canada, you’ve lost the argument.

Link: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl ... 17468.html


The Keystone Oil Pipeline now has pretty strong Bipartisan support. Twelve Democratic Members of Congress along with many GOP Members have signed a letter to President Obama in support of the immediate approval and construction of the Keystone Pipeline. Why should I side with the Politically Partisan "watchdog" group Media Matters on the Keystone Pipeline, instead of a pretty large group of Bipartisan Members of Congress???
Here is this important letter:

Terry Leads More Than 145 Bipartisan House Members Requesting Immediate Approval of Keystone

WASHINGTON, DC – As a leading proponent of the Keystone XL pipeline, Congressman Lee Terry (R-NE) coordinated a bipartisan effort of more than 145 House members to join together in stating their support for the immediate approval and construction of the pipeline. The following letter, signed by the Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, the Subcommittee Chairman of Energy and Power, the Chairman of Transportation and Infrastructure, and members from regions all over the country, including Texas, Illinois, California, New York, Arkansas and Utah, is one of the strongest bipartisan statements to-date sent to the President in support of the approval of the Keystone XL pipeline:

President Barack Obama

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, D.C. 20500

Dear Mr. President:

On January 22, 2013, Governor Dave Heinemann transmitted a letter to you in support of the re-route through the state of Nebraska for the Keystone XL pipeline project. This letter will be included in the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement on the application pending before the State Department.

It has been 4 and a half years since the initial application was made to the State Department. The Final Environmental Impact Statement on the original application was dated August 26, 2011. Congress was told that the reason for the denial of the original application was not based on the merits of the project, but rather on insufficient time to assess the application with a revised route through Nebraska.

All studies show that this project will have minimal environmental impact and a substantial economic benefit to our country. In light of the recent events in North Africa, we need to be investing in energy infrastructure to control our own resources. We need to be able to move resources, not only from Canada, but from the many domestic shale plays that have recently come on line. We need to make our country energy independent.

We respectfully request that your administration act expeditiously and approve the project as soon as possible. You have the information from the State of Nebraska. No other portion of the pipeline has changed. Given the positive impact of domestic energy on jobs and the economy, you must come to the conclusion that this is in the national interest

It is time to act in our nation’s best interest and approve the Keystone XL pipeline.

Sincerely,

Lee Terry, Member of Congress

Fred Upton, Member of Congress

Ed Whitfield, Member of Congress

Gene Green, Member of Congress

Steve Daines, Member of Congress



Plus 141 additional Members of Congress: Click Here to view a complete list.

Link: http://leeterry.house.gov/index.php?opt ... mid=100028

So can you give me a good reason why we should dump so much money into this pipe dream?

It will cost a lot less to build the Keystone oil Pipeline than it will cost to build California's Governor Jerry Brown's so-called high-speed rail system.

No More Keystone Excuses

Governor signs law to make California home to nation's first truly high-speed rail

California lawmakers scrutinize high-speed rail plan

SACRAMENTO -- California officials are using a standard bidding process for their plan to speed construction of the state's $68 billion high-speed rail line, but there are still outstanding questions about the inspection process that the Legislature should investigate, lawmakers heard Tuesday at a hearing on the plan.

[_Quasimodo]

I suppose that the pipeline is a good idea. Both economically and strategically sound.

I just wish that some better, more economic source of energy could be found. Exploding inflammable liquids in cylinders to propel vehicles seems almost barbaric.

[_Kevin Graham]

Why should I believe the Politically ultra-liberal media "watchdog" group Media Matters over Democratic Congressman Matheson of Utah on this issue???

Because it cites several independent studies proving this to be the case, whereas you rely strictly on a study produced by the company that would benefit most if it were to be built. That's the beauty of Media Matters. You guys can wail and moan about it being liberal but the fact is it generally usues independent studies to make its case. Attack the source and not the messenger.

From realclearpolitics.com:

No, it is from the ultra Right Wing pseudo-journaistic outlet called the New York Post and written by the same idiot who wrote "Liberal Fascism." You don't think that maybe this guy could be writing from biased presuppositions?

The Keystone Oil Pipeline now has pretty strong Bipartisan support.

Twelve Democrats who have given into the lobbyist's demands, hardly makes it "strong Bipartisan support" especially when there are 200 Democrats in the House of Representatives. Even the 141 Republicans supporting it only means less than a third of the 435 Congressmen support the bill.

The irony here is you refuse to learn about this issue and accept the facts, on the basis that you refuse to learn from biased sources. When in reality you're already doing it. In fact you're the only one doing it. You base your argument on what some radical Right Winger says instead of dealing with the independent studies, and you don't even bother to do the basic math before jumping to the conclusions about "strong bipartisan support."

It will cost a lot less to build the Keystone oil Pipeline than it will cost to build California's Governor Jerry Brown's so-called high-speed rail system.

Yes, but a nationwide High Speed Rail system is a true no-brainer because the best way to reduce the cost of gasoline at this point is to reduce demand, not by increasing supply. Show me a study that says Keystone will provide enough crude to make a true difference when paying at the pump.

The International Energy Agency (IEA), for example, outlined a moderately aggressive scenario last year that would see the United States cut its oil consumption by 29 percent between 2007 and 2030. Sixty percent of that cut would have come from transportation, with the balance coming primarily from nearly eliminating oil use in electricity generation and from conservation in heating homes. A mix of better internal combustion engines, shifting to hybrid and plug-in-hybrid vehicles, and greater use of biofuels would produce the transport result. If that was combined with increased onshore oil production, perhaps from CO2-enhanced oil recovery, it could cut U.S. imports by more than half.

Obama gets it.

Obama noted that even if the US were to drill “every drop” of U.S. oil, US oil only accounts for 2 percent of the world supply, while the US consumes 25 percent of the oil. He also pointed out that 70 percent of US petroleum consumption comes from the transportation sector.

Most of the oil consumption part of the speech focused on alternative-fueled personal and commercial vehicles, but he did make reference to increasing mass transit options: ” We’ve also made historic investments in high-speed rail and mass transit, because part of making our transportation sector cleaner and more efficient involves offering Americans – urban, suburban, and rural – the choice to be mobile without having to get in a car and pay for gas.”

The administration has invested about $11 billion in high speed rail, and wants to spend more than $50 billion more.

Hell yes! Obama brings the USA to the 21st century, at last.

[_krose]

I don't get it. I can see how the pipeline benefits the Canadian corporation, but what's in it for us, the American consumers?

A few thousand temporary jobs for a year or two of construction, and under 100 permanent jobs watching and maintaining the thing. Wow.

Surely you don't believe US consumers will have any special claim to the oil in the pipeline just because it would flow through our country? It would be put on the world market and sold to the highest bidder, just like all the rest of the world's oil.


(Also, I wouldn't put a lot of stock in Matheson's credibility among liberals. He's more conservative than a lot of Republicans in the country.)

[_Quasimodo]

I don't get it. I can see how the pipeline benefits the Canadian corporation, but what's in it for us, the American consumers?

A few thousand temporary jobs for a year or two of construction, and under 100 permanent jobs watching and maintaining the thing. Wow.

Surely you don't believe US consumers will have any special claim to the oil in the pipeline just because it would flow through our country? It would be put on the world market and sold to the highest bidder, just like all the rest of the world's oil.


(Also, I wouldn't put a lot of stock in Matheson's credibility among liberals. He's more conservative than a lot of Republicans in the country.)

You're correct that a pipeline running through the flat country of the Canadian and US Great Plains would be much cheaper to build than one that runs across the Canadian Rockies to a Canadian port.

I do believe that many US refineries would also have access to the oil on it's way down to the Gulf. More gas.

[_Kevin Graham]

I do believe that many US refineries would also have access to the oil on it's way down to the Gulf. More gas.

It doesn't matter, since they'd still have to pay market price for it. So it wouldn't matter if the oil was pumped out of the refinery's backyard or Antarctica.

[_Quasimodo]

I do believe that many US refineries would also have access to the oil on it's way down to the Gulf. More gas.

It doesn't matter, since they'd still have to pay market price for it. So it wouldn't matter if the oil was pumped out of the refinery's backyard or Antarctica.

Yep, that is very true. It only counts if there is some sort of trouble in the middle east that slows or halts oil importation. It only has strategic value.

As I said in an earlier post on this thread, I would much prefer some other source of energy.