Keystone Pipeline

[_Rambo]

Rambo -

My company writes environmental impact statements (EIS), the type of study you mentioned. Pres. Obama did the right thing in not allowing the permit because the EIS did not adequately address all of the issues it needed to and left some serious consequences on the table.

I don't care if you think he was weak in doing so, or sending jobs to China, etc. It was a serious decision that required time and the Republican party in the US made a move that derailed the ability to resolve those issues so it could be permitted.

Do you have reading on where the Republican party derailed the ability to resolve these issues.
You don't think Obama doesn't want to make a decision before the elections? I'm sure there is some motivation there. I can't prove it though.

If you'd like to read more on the decision, please see here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/79336703/Keystone

You can also read the entire Final EIS here: http://www.keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov/clientsite/keystonexl.nsf?Open

Alright, I'll read these but not right now cause I don't have time. I'm just curious how a pipeline isn't safer than an oil tanker. I'm not sure if there is a study on that but gut feeling tells me it's not. Why doesn't Obama stop oil tankers right now?

Taking a step back was the right thing to do. It just was. He didn't close the door on the project, which actually made many environmentalists angry as well. All of which reinforces to me that people are dumb when it comes to issues that they can't distance themselves from enough to see both sides. Obama, for whatever faults people attribute to him, is taking the long view and I support that.

Yes he didn't close the door which is good. However; is there a good suggestion of where the US is going to get it's energy needs?

[_Rambo]

I guess the main point is this.

Would you rather have oil come in oil tankers from your enemies and create no jobs. Also probably has the same environmental risk.

Or have oil come from your friends in a pipeline which will create jobs during construction.

[_Bond James Bond]

I guess the main point is this.

Would you rather have oil come in oil tankers from your enemies and create no jobs. Also probably has the same environmental risk.

Or have oil come from your friends in a pipeline which will create jobs during construction.

I certainly would prefer the pipeline as long as it's done safely. A little more work with the regulators and it might be ready to go in a safe manner. I wish it wouldn't be such a politicized thing though. I like cheap gas but know we're eventually going to have to ween ourselves off oil. I'd like to take the first steps towards alternative fuels now with the government's help. Sure "Solyndras" are going to happen in a free market, but what's the difference between Solyndra and the dozens of cancelled military projects over the years funded by the US?

[_EAllusion]

Sure "Solyndras" are going to happen in a free market, but what's the difference between Solyndra and the dozens of cancelled military projects over the years funded by the US?

I don't think it is fair to say that Solyndras are going to happen in the free market. They are, but in an environment of heavy government subsidy of businesses they are more likely to happen because that system is more vulnerable to graft and inefficient distribution of resources. You can point to how poorly the Pentagon spends its money; how corrupt the military contractor system is. That only reinforces the point. At least in the case of the military there are very good reasons why the government should be in charge of it and why the government shouldn't make everything itself that don't exist in the case of electricity production.

Don't become an apologist for leftwing corporatism simply because you can point to the hypcrisy of rightwing corporatism.

[_Droopy]

Do the environmental groups have trouble with Canadian oil pipelines because of their memories of places like Banff?

Environmental groups have problems with the pipeline because they have problems with industrial civilization, property rights, and free market capitalism, not because of any particular instance of environmental damage.

Dig beneath the green watermelon skin to see the red, sweet tissue of environmentalism. Unless you do, you do not understand of what you speak.

[_Droopy]

I'm for building the pipeline, as long as 25% of all profits must be reinvested in producing clean energy...eventually we're going to run out of oil guys.

Bad idea, as none of theses technologies have, as of yet, the remotest economic viability as large scale alternatives to fossil fuel (and there is no danger in using fossil fuel 'tll the cows come home, in any case). The very reality of the core necessity of government subsidizatin of these "industries" is the best evidence of their core economic unviability or, shall I say, unsustainability).

The wind always blows though...

No, it very patently doesn't, and that is only the beginning of the now well understood problems of using wind to generate energy.

and the sun always shines.

No, it very patently doesn't, and there is no concievable econmic viabilty to large scale solar energy generation at our present level of engineering ability.

[_Droopy]

we could use less energy too...

Not if we want economic growth and high living standards. This world is a world of trade-offs, not solutions.

What we need is not energy conservation (although, on an individual, family, and node level, saving money on energy is a good thing), but energy production, and on a mass scale. The entire nation would be well advised to go nuclear, and go nuclear all the way (as this was always the answer to our energy needs, as well as to the "dirty" technologies that so exercise the imaginations of our modern militant gnostic pantheists).

[_honorentheos]

I guess the main point is this.

Would you rather have oil come in oil tankers from your enemies and create no jobs. Also probably has the same environmental risk.

Or have oil come from your friends in a pipeline which will create jobs during construction.

Rambo,

This isn't really the issue. For relevant insight, consider the accusations being thrown around during the off-shore oil spill caused by the BP rig. They included complaints that the rigs were permitted on a fast-track system that failed to address key safety and environmental issues. Or how apparent it became that BP did not have an adequate emergency action plan.

If you skim throught the executive summary of the Final EIS the facts become apparent that TC Keystone was not accurately identifying the potential for leaks (a recent example cited in the EIS was another Keystone pipeline that had 14 leaks in one year, two of which escaped or were outside of the capture trench. One of those leaks was 21,000 gallons. One year after operations began) and they did not have an emergency action plan despite proposing a pipeline that will cross one of the most important aquifers in the United States. We don't have a second chance to fix it if this pipeline leaks the estimated 2 million gallon max. cited in the EIS over the Ogallala aquifer. We don't have a second chance at fixing problems caused by Keystone failing to identify potential leaks at other weak points in the system other than the pipeline itself (a key issue identified in the EIS). The State Department's recommendation not to permit was the right one given the issues. We should learn from our past mistakes.

It's about being responsible. When TransCanadian addresses the issues and develops a realistic emergency action plan then we'll see.

[_honorentheos]

You know Droopy, I wanted to agree with you when you said we should go nuclear but that first sentance is so honestly scary I have a hard time saying I do. I do agree, though, that we should not take it off the table. We should be looking for ways to address the problems it poses (spent rod disposal, safety during unpredicable events such as natural disasters or acts of war, etc.) but...it's pretty messed up to suggest that trade-offs should = short sightedness.

we could use less energy too...

Not if we want economic growth and high living standards. This world is a world of trade-offs, not solutions.

What we need is not energy conservation (although, on an individual, family, and node level, saving money on energy is a good thing), but energy production, and on a mass scale. The entire nation would be well advised to go nuclear, and go nuclear all the way (as this was always the answer to our energy needs, as well as to the "dirty" technologies that so exercise the imaginations of our modern militant gnostic pantheists).

[_Droopy]

You know Droopy, I wanted to agree with you when you said we should go nuclear but that first sentance is so honestly scary I have a hard time saying I do.

What's "scary" about what was said there?