TransCanada Keystone XL pipeline approved by Nebraska in 3-2 vote

This project has been a long time coming. Many have issues with this manner of transporting crude. It is a political issue as well as an environmental one. Nebraska has been a hold out until this week. They have finally approved the project....with a caveat. Changing the preferred route.

Nebraska regulators approved passage of TransCanada’s Keystone XL pipeline Monday, clearing the last major regulatory hurdle for the controversial $10-billion project but creating a new wrinkle by choosing an alternative route for the pipeline.

TransCanada said it was evaluating the decision by the state’s Public Service Commission, which opted not to approve the company’s preferred route and instead went for one that shifts the southern portion of the pipeline toward an existing pipeline route and away from sensitive ecological areas.

“We will conduct a careful review of the Public Service Commission’s ruling while assessing how the decision would impact the cost and schedule of the project,” said company CEO Russ Girling in a statement.

In a written decision, the panel said it was in the public’s interest to put the new pipeline nearer to TransCanada’s existing Keystone pipeline already running through the state to make it easier to monitor and respond to spills, to reduce impacts on endangered species and other benefits related to reduced conflicts.

torontosun.com...

Both sides in this issue are claiming this a victory.

Still, those opposed to the pipeline jumped on the change by saying it could bring into doubt the future of the project.

“Today’s decision is no guarantee that this pipeline will ever be built,” said Greenpeace campaigner Mike Hudema in a statement.

However:

Despite the opposition, the decision gives more certainty to the 1,900-kilometre pipeline that TransCanada has been working to develop for nearly a decade, Wood Mackenzie analyst Zachary Rogers said in a note.

And logic dictates that it seems more likely that the project will go forward.

The panel said in the decision that the alternative route was only eight kilometres longer than the preferred route, and that TransCanada had told the commission it was still a viable and beneficial route.

Almost a million barrels per day of crude going to the refineries on the Gulf. Some will see it as an economic boon. Others a dangerous endeavor.
So love pipelines or hate them it looks like this one will be going through in the end.

Barack Obama rejected Keystone XL in 2015 after years of review, only for President Donald Trump to give the go-ahead to the project in March, saying the pipeline will bring jobs and reduce dependence on foreign oil.

I don't know, but can this be considered a necessary evil?

Safer than railways. Lac-Mégantic rail disaster comes to mind...

originally posted by: snowspirit
Safer than railways. Lac-Mégantic rail disaster comes to mind...

I am putting that disaster down to human error.

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: snowspirit
Safer than railways. Lac-Mégantic rail disaster comes to mind...

I am putting that disaster down to human error.

That somehow mitigates it?

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: snowspirit
Safer than railways. Lac-Mégantic rail disaster comes to mind...

I am putting that disaster down to human error.

That somehow mitigates it?

According to the statistics (high human error and maintenance (also human) percentages) in the link, it should mitigate it, should it not?

www.quora.com...

www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca...

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: snowspirit
Safer than railways. Lac-Mégantic rail disaster comes to mind...

I am putting that disaster down to human error.

That somehow mitigates it?

According to the statistics (high human error and maintenance (also human) percentages) in the link, it should mitigate it, should it not?

www.quora.com...

www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca...

Bottom line is spills. Rail has more moving parts than pipelines. Parts wear down and are subject to human error as well.

Far more spills/derails than pipeline issues. Add in the U.S. political dynamics and while both the XL and ND pipelines were contested, multiple pipelines were approved and built.

Both those pipelines fell in Buffets' BNSF rail control. The very means the oil would be transported if the pipelines were disapproved.

Buffet supported Obama....

All oil spills ultimately stem from human error.

I would be extremely hesitant to 'mitigate' the human flaw in the system.

a reply to: nwtrucker

The source also mentioned that:

The vote came as TransCanada continued to clean up a 5,000-barrel oil spill from its pipeline in nearby South Dakota that opponents have held up as a reason not to approve Keystone XL.

That's the equivalent of 7 rail cars. I did the math. So depending on the frequency of spills it appears as if pipelines are superior in transport from an ecological point of view.

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: nwtrucker

The source also mentioned that:

The vote came as TransCanada continued to clean up a 5,000-barrel oil spill from its pipeline in nearby South Dakota that opponents have held up as a reason not to approve Keystone XL.

That's the equivalent of 7 rail cars. I did the math.

So depending on the frequency of spills it appears as if pipelines are superior in transport from an ecological point of view.

That recent spill wasn't allowed to have any bearing on the hearing.

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: nwtrucker

The source also mentioned that:

The vote came as TransCanada continued to clean up a 5,000-barrel oil spill from its pipeline in nearby South Dakota that opponents have held up as a reason not to approve Keystone XL.

That's the equivalent of 7 rail cars. I did the math.

So depending on the frequency of spills it appears as if pipelines are superior in transport from an ecological point of view.

That's my understanding of it.

For the most part, the people protesting the pipeline are environmentalists, ethanol producers and farmers that didnt want to give up land. Most everyone else around these parts are interested in the jobs and the short bursts in local economies.

The pipe line is not necessary and is a boon.

The oil from the Tar Sands was already being transported via other means.

Honestly it's amazing the hoax propaganda people fall for. It won't create any long term jobs.

Get a clue people.

a reply to: intrepid

Looks like it was sabotage:

www.desmoinesregister.com...

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: intrepid

Looks like it was sabotage:

www.desmoinesregister.com...

It was arson-related and no oil was in the pipes at the time, however their actions are not condoned by the other activists. Having said that, the new wave of activists are slowly giving up the peaceful marches and turning to civil disobedience.

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: intrepid

Looks like it was sabotage:

www.desmoinesregister.com...

It was arson-related and no oil was in the pipes at the time, however their actions are not condoned by the other activists. Having said that, the new wave of activists are slowly giving up the peaceful marches and turning to civil disobedience.

Some would call it vandalism. And I've heard the term "ecoterrorist".

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: intrepid

Looks like it was sabotage:

www.desmoinesregister.com...

It was arson-related and no oil was in the pipes at the time, however their actions are not condoned by the other activists. Having said that, the new wave of activists are slowly giving up the peaceful marches and turning to civil disobedience.

Some would call it vandalism.

And I've heard the term "ecoterrorist".

I was referring to the new wave in activism on a general basis, not specifically related to this event, which, yes, is vandalism.

originally posted by: SR1TX
The pipe line is not necessary and is a boon.

The oil from the Tar Sands was already being transported via other means.

Honestly it's amazing the hoax propaganda people fall for. It won't create any long term jobs.

Get a clue people.

Evidence suggests otherwise. A company wants to build it as the demand for oil in the southern states is sufficient to pay for that supply.

If there was alternate delivery systems, there wouldn't be the desire to build this one. (Not that it's your call, anyways)

Oil exports out of the Tar Sands have crashed since fracking and shale development. It IS a boon to Alberta and the southern states' oil refineries. It's a short term boon in the states connecting.

The long term jobs will be in Alberta and Texas.

It's happening. Deal with it.