Obama Announces "No Keystone Pipeline"!

This was a huge mistake by the POTUS. However, I am pretty sure that the next Republican President will bring up XL again and it will be OK'D. There has been no environmental problem with the pipeline from Cushing, OK to the Gulf of Mexico. Why would there be a problem from Cushing, OK to the border of Canada? The Alaskan pipeline is a good example of how not dangerous a pipeline actually is. B.O. just wanted to side with the wacko's to further is own agenda in spite of what the American people want.

a reply to: Ceeker63

I think the biggest initial concern over the Keystone XL was its possible threat to the Ogallala Aquifer should a major spill happen there. There was a re-direct made on the route it was to take on the region because of that, but I don’t know if this is still a credible game changer.

a reply to: Ceeker63

ceeker..it's not even our oil, it's Canadian oil that would be sent to the gulf and loaded up on ships....why do you care so much?....by the way, Nebraskan natives are not on board with this either, and they are a pretty conservative group, as is their entire state government....why not direct you anger to them?....

originally posted by: masqua
a reply to: Ceeker63

I think the biggest initial concern over the Keystone XL was its possible threat to the Ogallala Aquifer should a major spill happen there. There was a re-direct made on the route it was to take on the region because of that, but I don’t know if this is still a credible game changer.

There are also a whole slew of Imminent domain issues and native american land use issues as well. Those are more important. Espeically in this age, when our freedoms are being eroded. Republicans are using this issue to take away even more land and more rights.

originally posted by: masqua
a reply to: Ceeker63

I think the biggest initial concern over the Keystone XL was its possible threat to the Ogallala Aquifer should a major spill happen there. There was a re-direct made on the route it was to take on the region because of that, but I don’t know if this is still a credible game changer.

Must not have been that big of an issue. Rail runs right over it...a lot.

This whole things has bumpkiss to do with 'environmental concerns'. Because if that was a concern...rail wouldn't be an option.

Rail+Oil = more environmental damage than Pipe+Oil. Rail leaks more per barrel shipped, spills more per barrel shipped, and costs more (in dollars and carbon footprint) per barrel shipped.

To add to the fun...anybody want to hazard a guess as to what was forced to not ship, in lieu of oil, in most cases?

I will give you a hint, it is more important than even oil.

a reply to: quercusrex

I agree it is lower, but still another risk for something that we would see little benefit of.

Not saying pipelines are bad, but to run one that we don't see the benefit from still adds risk.
Why would environmentalist want an added risk with little reward when the risk can just not be allowed?

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic
I will be visiting my best friend and sister from the Pine Ridge Rez tonight, but we have friends at Rosebud.

Will find out what the people on the Rez are saying.

a reply to: Sremmos80

Because it's already coming through by train.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: quercusrex

I agree it is lower, but still another risk for something that we would see little benefit of.

Not saying pipelines are bad, but to run one that we don't see the benefit from still adds risk.
Why would environmentalist want an added risk with little reward when the risk can just not be allowed?

That's the thing. We should all want this stopped based on one simple question. Who benefits from this pipeline? Oil Companies that aren't even US Companies and greedy American politicians. That's it. There is no appreciable benefit for the Average American citizen. There are no Jobs..a few here and there, no more than opening a couple of more McDonalds. If you were to, Honestly, make a pro and con chart...the cons outway the pros on this one overwhelmingly. Imminent domain, Native American Land use without permission, No jobs, more greed for our politicians. more environmental risk...there are no pros to this!

originally posted by: Sremmos80
Not saying pipelines are bad, but to run one that we don't see the benefit from still adds risk.
Why would environmentalist want an added risk with little reward when the risk can just not be allowed?

Your question is meaningless. Now, the same quantity of oil will be shipped, or the very same areas, in a much more dangerous fashion.

So, to recap:
Risk specific to area has increased.
Cost has increased.
Risk globally has increased.

But, there is no pipe...so..win?

FYI (for everybody)...Gogama, Ont. was the 'new, safer' (CPC-1232) rail cars.

originally posted by: peck420

originally posted by: Sremmos80
Not saying pipelines are bad, but to run one that we don't see the benefit from still adds risk.
Why would environmentalist want an added risk with little reward when the risk can just not be allowed?

Your question is meaningless. Now, the same quantity of oil will be shipped, or the very same areas, in a much more dangerous fashion.

So, to recap:
Risk specific to area has increased.
Cost has increased.
Risk globally has increased.

But, there is no pipe...so..win?

FYI (for everybody)...Gogama, Ont. was the 'new, safer' (CPC-1232) rail cars.

Not much safer...a percentage point? And when a train car leaks...there is a finite amount and we know right away. When a pipeline leaks..it's ongoing more catastrophic. Cheaper? perhaps but then you have to add in the cost of building the pipleline...so not really cheaper.

a reply to: amazing

Except for billions of dollars in construction over the past several years on the Texas coast. Me and lots of other regular American blue collar types have earned and locally spent quite a bit. The crude from Canada is still getting here and a sh$t ton of people are paying their bills. So as I basically said earlier deny it all you want, it's already happening.

originally posted by: amazing
Not much safer...a percentage point? And when a train car leaks...there is a finite amount and we know right away. When a pipeline leaks..it's ongoing more catastrophic. Cheaper? perhaps but then you have to add in the cost of building the pipleline...so not really cheaper.

Incorrect. Monitoring and maintenance are designed (or not) into a pipeline at the build phase.

The reason we see abysmal response times to pipeline spills, now, is because idiots won't let the industry build newer pipelines. They force industry to continue to ship over antiquated lines...many times built long before monitoring and maintenance were even design thoughts.

Sadly, even getting regulatory consent to upgrade existing lines, to better standards, is fought.

Ah well...I guess shipping oil in one of the most energy expensive methods, over routes never designed to handle the type of loads being carried, by individual carriers that require a substantial increase in transfers (where most spills occur) is a better idea?

originally posted by: Enochstask

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Enochstask

How does this hurt america?

It would supply jobs and lower fuel prices. It would also supply our refineries in the South which would ensure more revenue which equates to more tax revenue.

Wrong and wrong. The fuel is for export only and will cause prices in the Midwest to go up and in the long run it will cost more jobs than it creates. Also no tax revenue will be collected off it after it gets to port because it is a tax free port.

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: Enochstask

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Enochstask

How does this hurt america?

It would supply jobs and lower fuel prices. It would also supply our refineries in the South which would ensure more revenue which equates to more tax revenue.

Wrong and wrong. The fuel is for export only and will cause prices in the Midwest to go up and in the long run it will cost more jobs than it creates. Also no tax revenue will be collected off it after it gets to port because it is a tax free port.

Wrong again.

It is a supply line to U.S. Gulf Coast refineries — which have signed up to 20-year binding commercial contracts to receive oil through Keystone XL. This much-needed oil will allow refineries to create products that we all rely on every day — gasoline for our vehicles, aviation fuels, and diesel fuels to help transport goods throughout the continent. It makes absolutely no sense for companies to purchase cheaper Canadian crude, and then pay (again) to ship that product overseas, while continuing to import higher-priced oil from the Middle East and Venezuela.

In fact, the State Department’s own Environmental Impact Statement addresses this directly:

Exports of Canadian crude are “unlikely to be economically justified for any significant durable trade given transport costs and market conditions.”
Once [Canadian crude] arrives at the Gulf Coast, Gulf Coast refiners have a significant competitive advantage in processing compared to foreign refiners who would have to incur additional transportation charges to have the crude oil delivered from the Gulf Coast to their location.
Gulf Coast refiners’ traditional sources of heavy crudes, particularly Mexico and Venezuela are declining and are expected to continue. Both the EIA’s 2013 AEO and EnSys WORLD model indicate that this demand for heavy crude in the Gulf Coast refineries is likely to persist.
EnSys modeling shows no export of light or heavy crude carried on Keystone XL or any other pipeline into PADD 3 onward to overseas markets, confirming the barriers that PADD 3 heavy crude demand and transport costs.
- See more at: keystone-xl.com...

originally posted by: NightSkyeB4Dawn
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic
I will be visiting my best friend and sister from the Pine Ridge Rez tonight, but we have friends at Rosebud.

Will find out what the people on the Rez are saying.

That would be great! Please let us know! Thanks!

a reply to: Kukri

Either way it's all good in my eyes. And in regards to shipping by rail, I'd rather have the odd derailment and a ruptured car or two than some pipeline spewing oil undetected for days or weeks.

No you would not...Not if your these people.

Lac Megantic Rail Disaster

Hopefully 50 years from now the idea of building an oil pipeline will be laughable. I'm really hoping technological advances like electric cars cause our oil consumption to plummet.

originally posted by: BrokedownChevy
Hopefully 50 years from now the idea of building an oil pipeline will be laughable. I'm really hoping technological advances like electric cars cause our oil consumption to plummet.

Electric cars becoming the norm would be the single largest boom in oil's current history.

We would have to bleed Alberta dry just to make enough cars to replace the current US vehicular fleet.

We are a very, very long ways away from removing our dependency on oil, specifically due to oil's ability to be more than just an energy source. It's products and byproducts are found in every industry, let alone the energy.

I'm glad Obama rejected the pipeline, but i also know this won't be the last of it. Once a republican gets into the White House it will be approved. I wouldn't want a oil pipeline running anywhere near where live, not after seeing the pipeline that ruptured in Mayflower, Arkansas in 2013.