US Court: Transcanada's Keystone XL Profits More Important than Environment by

It doesn't seem as though there is much support in this thread for the idea that KXL would be an environmental nightmare. Ok, fair enough, the discussion is changing to the economic. Try this:

AMHERST, Mass.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Regional Economic Models, Inc. (REMI), the foremost provider of dynamic economic models for policy analysis, and Energy & Water Economics, today announce a study evaluating the economic impact of the Keystone XL pipeline.

“The REMI model forecasts that the XL expansion of the Keystone pipeline would create about 16,000 jobs over a two-year period,” said Nystrom. “After that two years, about 800 jobs would be sustainable moving forward.” “The pipeline will increase competition between Canadian and Middle East crude producers for position in Gulf Coast and Midwest refineries, but will not affect refined product prices,” according to Dr. Wade.

“The benefits of the Keystone XL pipeline would be concentrated largely in the pipeline states themselves,” said Wade. “These areas could see an increase in gross domestic product by as much as $3.1 billion as well as an increase in business sales by as much as $6 billion.”

www.businesswire.com...

FyreByrd

Everywhere I turn, it's profit over Life.

The only God is the almightly Dollar.

The degridation of the food we all eat, the water we all drink and the air we all breathe has turned us into a species of idiots. I don't claim to be a bit better because I'm at the point of giving up altogether (which won't help either).

Money over people, money over freedom, money over everything.

I agree with this statement. Greed is more important than the livelihoods of others in most places on the planet, especially when the West has their way.

The way I think about the current way most of humanity operates is akin to some movie where an alien species invades Earth to steal its resources and move on to the next planet. Many of today's cultures operate the same way: exploit the Earth's resources and move on to the next state/country and do the same.. Until nothing is left?!

With this pipeline I don't know the details but in my opinion most of the land and water in the USA is contaminated to some degree from various pollution over the decades of carelessness to the land and little to no thought on the impacts in the short and long term future.

reply to post by tothetenthpower

...Companies will now have protection of profits fall before protection of consumers and the environment. Not only that, but now foreign governments can sue yours

These terms were written into the original US-Canada free trade agreement - and have been included in every free trade agreement signed since. Legally, under international law, we are ruled by corporate states. And as you say, we are "consumers" - not people or citizens or voters.

reply to post by charles1952


I regret to inform you that that is not an unbiased source. The Heritage Foundation is a conservative think tank that was specifically formed to create Conservative position papers with the express purpose of influencing policy to a more Conservative ideal. That is the epitome of bias.

soficrow
reply to post by tothetenthpower

 

...Companies will now have protection of profits fall before protection of consumers and the environment. Not only that, but now foreign governments can sue yours

These terms were written into the original US-Canada free trade agreement - and have been included in every free trade agreement signed since. Legally, under international law, we are ruled by corporate states. And as you say, we are "consumers" - not people or citizens or voters.

Please see today's www.abovetopsecret.com...

Urgent - There's an International Plan to Censor the Internet in the Works -- Let's Stop It in Its

Philippines

FyreByrd

Everywhere I turn, it's profit over Life.

The only God is the almightly Dollar.

The degridation of the food we all eat, the water we all drink and the air we all breathe has turned us into a species of idiots. I don't claim to be a bit better because I'm at the point of giving up altogether (which won't help either).

Money over people, money over freedom, money over everything.

I agree with this statement. Greed is more important than the livelihoods of others in most places on the planet, especially when the West has their way.

The way I think about the current way most of humanity operates is akin to some movie where an alien species invades Earth to steal its resources and move on to the next planet. Many of today's cultures operate the same way: exploit the Earth's resources and move on to the next state/country and do the same.. Until nothing is left?!

With this pipeline I don't know the details but in my opinion most of the land and water in the USA is contaminated to some degree from various pollution over the decades of carelessness to the land and little to no thought on the impacts in the short and long term future.

Nothing much is left....

charles1952
It doesn't seem as though there is much support in this thread for the idea that KXL would be an environmental nightmare. Ok, fair enough, the discussion is changing to the economic. Try this:

AMHERST, Mass.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Regional Economic Models, Inc. (REMI), the foremost provider of dynamic economic models for policy analysis, and Energy & Water Economics, today announce a study evaluating the economic impact of the Keystone XL pipeline.

“The REMI model forecasts that the XL expansion of the Keystone pipeline would create about 16,000 jobs over a two-year period,” said Nystrom. “After that two years, about 800 jobs would be sustainable moving forward.” “The pipeline will increase competition between Canadian and Middle East crude producers for position in Gulf Coast and Midwest refineries, but will not affect refined product prices,” according to Dr. Wade.

“The benefits of the Keystone XL pipeline would be concentrated largely in the pipeline states themselves,” said Wade. “These areas could see an increase in gross domestic product by as much as $3.1 billion as well as an increase in business sales by as much as $6 billion.”

www.businesswire.com...

I think the support here and there is that it would be an environmental nightmare - historically we build with the lowest bidder not with an eye to contingencies (see Deepwater Horizon, Fukushima, Exxon Valdez among many many others)

Here's piece on some of the dangers:

www.policymic.com...

And in fairness a piece on the (LOL) non-dangers:

www.popularmechanics.com...

My Conclusion:

Oil production is dangerous! Oil transportation is dangerous?

To be a bit whack-a-mole on the subject: Why not build new refineries near the source????? Safer - less transportation of Crude.

Why not move the Crude in Trucks and Ships - less potential volumne of disaster and many, many hundreds maybe thousands of good jobs.

Profit before people.

reply to post by WhiteAlice

Dear WhiteAlice,

Thanks for informing that Heritage is a Conservative think tank. I'd like to ask you three questions:

Do you agree with:

If it was bad, Obama could have said no, or told the State Department to say no. What does it mean that they haven't? Your problem isn't with judges appointed a decade or two ago, it's with Obama who doesn't want to stop the thing. He could, with a simple signature.

If not, where is it wrong?

Do you agree with:

If I understand things correctly, KXL has been studied for five years. The State Department has conducted four studies, and eight different federal agencies have looked at it. Including the EPA. I think it's correct to say that the environment has been factored into this.

If not, where is it wrong?

And, finally, if you believe that a factual statement can be determined to be true or false based on where the statement is published, may I ask you to click on the Bulverism link in my signature?

With respect,
Charles1952

For the alternative energy poo-pooers

www.thesolutionsjournal.com...

Several other important benefits would also be realized:

Renewable energy would become affordable in those areas most in need of energy services.
Energy access—and all the social and economic benefits that come with it—would be improved for the world’s poorest people (the target price is U.S.$0.03–0.05 per kilowatt-hour).
The realization of environmental benefits such as reduced greenhouse gas emissions and pollution would be accelerated.
While the up-front investment cost of achieving these benefits is significant, the expected returns are equally large. Initial estimates suggest that an investment of U.S.$1–1.5 trillion—front-loaded, spread over ten to 20 years, and distributed through feed-in tariff mechanisms managed by individual countries—would be adequate to drop the price of renewables to the target affordability rate noted above. While this investment is a large amount, it represents ten to 15 years of the U.S.$100 billion per year committed at the 2009 Copenhagen climate summit—or two years of U.S. defense spending.

I was looking into another subject entirely and this popped up.

reply to post by FyreByrd

Dear FyreByrd,

I read your source article on the dangers and was surprised at the lack of information it had, or rather, at the lack of complete information it had.

I went looking for more information and found the report prepared by the State of Nebraska. (It was the first state report I found.)

Keystone worked with PHMSA and DOS to establish a set of 57 Special Conditions that would apply to the construction, operation, and maintenance of the Keystone XL Pipeline, including the Nebraska Reroute. Exhibit C of the Keystone XL Pipeline Project, Presidential Permit Application summarizes the pipeline specifications. The exhibit is presented in Appendix F.1. Included in the pipeline specification is the following statement regarding the 57 Special Conditions

The 30-inch-diameter Keystone Oil Pipeline that runs from Canada to Oklahoma had 14 unintentional releases of crude oil prior to May 29, 2011. None of these releases were from pipeline ruptures, but rather were releases at pump stations and at one mainline valve (MLV). The 14 releases are listed in Table 6.2-1. Pipeline shutdown occurred within 12 minutes of the time the spills were reported. With the exception of the second spill at the Ludden Pump Station (May 7, 2011), the spills were contained on site.

Although most of the May 2011 Ludden Pump Station spill (approximately 18,000 gallons [430 barrels]) was contained by a berm that surrounds the pump station, the pressure of the pipeline created a geyser-like release and approximately 2,100 gallons (50 barrels) of oil sprayed onto a neighboring field and trees. The onsite oil spill was remediated, and the residual off-site oil spray impacts were treated in-place in accordance with North Dakota State guidelines. No other remediation activities remain to be completed. (Emphasis added)

ecmp.nebraska.gov...

It's interesting to note that of the other 13 spills, seven had 10 gallons or less spilled (1/4 barrel) two had 30 gallons or less, The other four spills totaled 1100 gallons. Obviously, there were no significant problems.

But if you want to ship by truck, fine, go ahead. In June of this year, just one oil tanker truck turnover in Massachusetts sent more than 5,000 gallons of oil into the Mystic River.
arlington.patch.com...

And here's one rollover that spilled 8,000 gallons of oil in New York.
www.news10.com...

And that doesn't even begin to count the diesel fumes and energy usage of all those trucks. So, if the environment is your concern, the pipeline seems like a decent choice.

With respect,
Charles1952

charles1952
reply to post by FyreByrd

 

Dear FyreByrd,

I read your source article on the dangers and was surprised at the lack of information it had, or rather, at the lack of complete information it had.

I went looking for more information and found the report prepared by the State of Nebraska. (It was the first state report I found.)

Keystone worked with PHMSA and DOS to establish a set of 57 Special Conditions that would apply to the construction, operation, and maintenance of the Keystone XL Pipeline, including the Nebraska Reroute. Exhibit C of the Keystone XL Pipeline Project, Presidential Permit Application summarizes the pipeline specifications. The exhibit is presented in Appendix F.1. Included in the pipeline specification is the following statement regarding the 57 Special Conditions

The 30-inch-diameter Keystone Oil Pipeline that runs from Canada to Oklahoma had 14 unintentional releases of crude oil prior to May 29, 2011. None of these releases were from pipeline ruptures, but rather were releases at pump stations and at one mainline valve (MLV). The 14 releases are listed in Table 6.2-1. Pipeline shutdown occurred within 12 minutes of the time the spills were reported. With the exception of the second spill at the Ludden Pump Station (May 7, 2011), the spills were contained on site.

Although most of the May 2011 Ludden Pump Station spill (approximately 18,000 gallons [430 barrels]) was contained by a berm that surrounds the pump station, the pressure of the pipeline created a geyser-like release and approximately 2,100 gallons (50 barrels) of oil sprayed onto a neighboring field and trees. The onsite oil spill was remediated, and the residual off-site oil spray impacts were treated in-place in accordance with North Dakota State guidelines. No other remediation activities remain to be completed. (Emphasis added)

ecmp.nebraska.gov...

It's interesting to note that of the other 13 spills, seven had 10 gallons or less spilled (1/4 barrel) two had 30 gallons or less, The other four spills totaled 1100 gallons. Obviously, there were no significant problems.

But if you want to ship by truck, fine, go ahead. In June of this year, just one oil tanker truck turnover in Massachusetts sent more than 5,000 gallons of oil into the Mystic River.
arlington.patch.com...

And here's one rollover that spilled 8,000 gallons of oil in New York.
www.news10.com...

And that doesn't even begin to count the diesel fumes and energy usage of all those trucks. So, if the environment is your concern, the pipeline seems like a decent choice.

With respect,
Charles1952

Cherry picking a bit Charlie?

Granted the source I listed was not comprhensive, I was just looking for a example of people being worried about environmental effects in response to your earlier statement about people (ATSers in this thread presumablly) not being interested in environmental concerns only economic. Considering the OP was about "profits before people" that is understandable.

I find the following in the same article you quoted: Section 6.2.1

A total of approximately 843,000 gallons (20,080 barrels) of a
mixture of crude oil and dilbit were released.1
The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) conducted a thorough investigation of the
incident and released its Accident Report in July 2012 (NTSB, 2012).
The rupture occurred in an area of
wetlands south of Talmadge
Creek, a tributary of the
Kalamazoo River. Because heavy
rainfalls had increased the flows
of Talmadge Creek and the
Kalamazoo River, the oil quickly
spread, eventually adversely
affecting 25 miles of the
Kalamazoo River. Efforts to
extract the pipe and contain the oil
were delayed by these wet
conditions. During the initial
hours of the response, the EPA
On Scene Coordinator (OSC)
identified that Enbridge did not
have adequate resources to
contain or control the flow of oil
into Talmadge Creek and the Kalamazoo River. Therefore, EPA directed Enbridge to secure
more resources and directed these resources to local contractors to facilitate a quicker response.
The release occurred in an area with a concentrated population. Hundreds of people, including
several work-site employees, reported symptoms of adverse health effects (headache, nausea,
and respiratory problems) consistent with exposure to crude oil. Because of high concentrations
of benzene in the air, the Calhoun County Public Health Department issued a voluntary
evacuation notice for about 50 homes near the oil spill site.
Enbridge Line 6B oil spill. Photo from NTSB, 2012.

And from Section 6.2.3

On July 1, 2011, approximately 64,000 gallons (1,520 barrels) of crude oil were released from
ExxonMobil’s 12-inch Silvertip crude oil pipeline into the Yellowstone River about 20 miles
upstream of Billings, Montana (EPA, 2012f; ExxonMobil, 2012). It is believed that the pipeline
may have been exposed by high water in spring 2011 and subsequently damaged by debris
carried by the river (Associated Press, 2012). PHMSA’s Office of Pipeline Safety is
investigating the cause of the leak. PHMSA’s corrective action order stated that the pipe failed
at approximately 10:40 p.m. ExxonMobil began shut down at approximately 10:47 p.m., but did
not close both block valves to isolate the failed segment of pipeline for nearly 50 minutes, until
approximately 11:36 p.m. The failed section of the Silvertip Pipeline crossing the Yellowstone
River was constructed in 1991; however, the original portions of the Silvertip Pipeline were
primarily constructed between 1949 and 1954 (PHMSA, 2011a).

And from Section 6.2.3 (a better spill - if there is such a thing)

A spill from Enbridge’s Line 14 in Wisconsin is the most recent spill discussed in this section
and is also an example of some of the regulatory steps PHMSA can take following a release.
The leak occurred in Grand Marsh, Wisconsin, on July 27, 2012, when a rupture released
50,400 gallons (1,200 barrels) of light crude oil in a rural area. Two landowners were affected
(O’Brien, 2012) and several cows and horses needed veterinary attention (PHMSA, 2012a).
Line 14 is a 24-inch-diameter pipeline that was installed relatively recently, in 1998. A
landowner reported oil spraying on the pipeline ROW at approximately the same time that the
Enbridge control center noted signs of a possible release. The section containing the ruptured
pipe was isolated about 10 minutes later by closing remotely controlled valves located upstream
and downstream of the site of the release.

These were all spills of 50,000 gallon or more causing more damage, arguablly then 5,000 or 8,000 tank spills.

reply to post by charles1952


Well for one thing, I would observe that Justice Holmes was not appointed "decades ago" but was appointed by George W. Bush in 2006 so that's a bit of misinformation there. Sourcewww.ca10.uscourts.gov...

Secondly, the Keystone XL pipeline has been used as a political wedge over the last two years. It's called succumbing to political pressure in a time period of congressional volatility. He has neither approved or vetoed the Keystone XL pipeline because he knows it has extreme value to particular entities.
www.cbc.ca...
www.cbc.ca...
www2.macleans.ca...

Even if he does, Keystone XL is highly unlikely to come into being as it must pass through tribal lands under the control of the First Nations in Canada and they have sworn that it will not happen:
www.northumberlandtoday.com...

So, if you can get concessions made on climate change in exchange for approval of a project that may never come into fruition because it requires the agreement of the First Nation, then why not use it to get what you want?

Onto the second quote:

Yes, there has been a number of entities that have attempted to do environmental impact statements in regards to Keystone XL. However, just because a variety of entities have engaged in this scientific assessment, it does not mean that they agree or support. In fact, the EPA rated the DSEIS as EO2--"environmental objections--insufficient information".

We also look forward to working with you as you determine whether approving the proposed project serves the national interest under Executive Order 13337 "Issuance of Permits With Respect to Certain Energy-Related Facilities and Land Transportation Crossings on the International Boundaries of the United States". Keystone XL Commitment Letter by EPA

Factual statements are just that--statements of fact. However, even facts can be manipulated such as your own quotes. One quote stated that the judges had been appointed a decade or two ago when one had been appointed in 2007. Just 7 years ago but I suppose that's forgivable to just rounding. Furthermore, the first quote used the lack of veto from Obama as evidence of inherent approval, which is also not necessarily the case and is disregarding other facts that determine whether the project will even occur. The second statement basically cites the reality that Keystone XL has been studied for five years and that the environment has been "factored into this", which is factually true. However, if the second statement is being used to indicate that the environmental concerns have been addressed, then that is entirely misleading as the EPA, even after Congressional approval, has gone on record in the statement that the environmental impact studies have been insufficient.

Facts are facts but even a fact can be used in a misleading manner. One of the things that I learned at my university is to always question the source for bias. This isn't a fallacy. It's a comprehension that in the real world, facts get spun and sometimes even omitted.

reply to post by FyreByrd

Dear FyreByrd,

It seems we have a misunderstanding which I'd like to try to clear up. I don't believe i engaged in cherry picking (at least I didn't intend to). May I explain my thinking?

The reason I talked about financial concerns (besides that being the focus of the OP) was because it seemed as though the conversation was drifting that way, and no one seemed to be discussing the environmental side. Then, when you made some points about the environmental risks, I switched over to see what the source article had to say.

The Nebraska report talks about the various large spills you mentioned. You'll notice that they weren't Keystone or TransCanada accidents. The report also mentioned that Keystone was meeting 57 new standards to reduce or eliminate those risks. One of the large Enbridge spills was due to an ineffective waterproofing on the pipeline, which Keystone doesn't use, but is installing a more effective barrier.

I'm not sure that it's quite fair to compare Enbridge and TransCanada, but the Nebraska report shows that the state was familiar with them, and is not letting Keystone make the same mistakes. You'll also note that those large spills were all pipeline ruptures. Keystone is using a different technology and has not had a pipeline rupture.

I might reiterate that the pipeline in all the Keystone leaks was shut off within 12 minutes of report, all of the leaks were at the pumping stations, not the pipeline itself, and all of the spills, with the exception of 50 barrels, were contained onsite. The total of all 14 spills from Keystone is far less than the amount of spills from tanker trucks, and are much more confined and easy to clean up without environmental damage.

I hope that clarifies things.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by WhiteAlice

Dear WhiteAlice,

Thank you for the reminder that:

Facts are facts but even a fact can be used in a misleading manner. One of the things that I learned at my university is to always question the source for bias. This isn't a fallacy. It's a comprehension that in the real world, facts get spun and sometimes even omitted.

Of course I prefer to check whether or not the fact is true, and not so much if the source is biased. 2+2 = 4 regardless of where it's published or who says it. (Check my Bulverism link in my signature.) But if we're going to discard sources with evident, "flaming," bias, then the OP has nothing to say. The source is more extreme than Heritage, by far. As I've pointed out, they've neglected very significant facts to spin the article.

I would observe that Justice Holmes was not appointed "decades ago" but was appointed by George W. Bush in 2006 so that's a bit of misinformation there.

You're quite right. Seven years is not a decade. The other judge was appointed in 1991, 22 years ago. So if I misinformed people by saying:

Your problem isn't with judges appointed a decade or two ago

I don't think my slip was serious, or even significant.

Secondly, the Keystone XL pipeline has been used as a political wedge over the last two years. It's called succumbing to political pressure in a time period of congressional volatility. He has neither approved or vetoed the Keystone XL pipeline because he knows it has extreme value to particular entities.

This may be the most damning thing I've heard about Obama in months. You must really hate him to say that. Do you know that you're saying the environment doesn't matter to him, the economy doesn't matter to him, his attitude toward Keystone is based on what's good for him politically?

Even if he does, Keystone XL is highly unlikely to come into being as it must pass through tribal lands under the control of the First Nations in Canada and they have sworn that it will not happen

Then why not approve it? If he doesn't want Keystone, he doesn't have to worry, because you say it will never happen. If he does want it, then approve it and let the Canadian government figure it out.

So, if you can get concessions made on climate change in exchange for approval of a project that may never come into fruition because it requires the agreement of the First Nation, then why not use it to get what you want?

Because he hasn't asked for a single environmental concession yet, and after five years nobody is expecting him to. Again, you're saying that he's ignoring the issues and just trying to get something for himself from the deal.

Yes, there has been a number of entities that have attempted to do environmental impact statements in regards to Keystone XL. However, just because a variety of entities have engaged in this scientific assessment, it does not mean that they agree or support. In fact, the EPA rated the DSEIS as EO2--"environmental objections--insufficient information".

You're quite right, that's what the April letter said. Has there been even one report from a government agency that has said this is a bad project? I don't know of any. The EPA letter simply says "Go write some more stuff up, that will help us delay the issue." I would not be astonished to hear that Obama told his EPA administrator to stall so he can put off a final decision until after the 2014 elections. You're the one who has pointed out that this is all politics for him.

Furthermore, the first quote used the lack of veto from Obama as evidence of inherent approval, which is also not necessarily the case and is disregarding other facts that determine whether the project will even occur.

I'm afraid there is a misunderstanding here. I am hoping that our "science president" makes a decision. He's been batting it around forever. Canada will either sit on the oil, failing to strengthen their economy, or they'll sell it to someone else shipping it on some path through Canada. After all this time he can't decide? It seems he's afraid of making a decision for fear it's the wrong one politically.

The second statement basically cites the reality that Keystone XL has been studied for five years and that the environment has been "factored into this", which is factually true.

Thank you, I try.

However, if the second statement is being used to indicate that the environmental concerns have been addressed, then that is entirely misleading as the EPA, even after Congressional approval, has gone on record in the statement that the environmental impact studies have been insufficient.

Honestly, all the environmental concerns will never be addressed. They will never be addressed for any significant project. Even some insignificant projects get tied up for years because somebody, somewhere isn't happy. The EPA will be able to spend the next decade writing, "Oh, one more thing we need to know." letters.

I'm sorry to be repetitive, but if Obama wanted it, there's more than enough science to back up his approval. That tells me he doesn't want it, but this delay indicates that he's too cowardly to take the blame for saying, "It's too dangerous to build, we won't do it." I think he's stalling, hoping that some event occurs that means he doesn't have to make a decision.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by Drunkenparrot


Billions would die? That is just bs alarmism.

We would simply have to return to our roots of focusing our labor on food and shelter. If it wasn't possible then we would have never reached this stage in the first place.

reply to post by charles1952


Oof, lots of you statements. I agree that it was a minor slip and likely to be pure error than intent to deceive. The reason why biased sources of information are a problem is that they are almost always heavily laden with persuasive and biased language usage. They also tend to suffer from what would be considered "cherry picking"--basically, selecting preferential facts over facts that may support the opposing argument (though some may add one or two derogatory facts to lend an appearance of a lack of bias--you see that all the time in news articles and it is a known persuasive writing technique). These two factors are rife in biased sources from either side. To be absolutely clear, if you had cited the Sierra Club, I would've still said it was a biased source. The best one can do is look for unbiased sources while still being on guard for biased language usage.

As far as my opinion of Obama, I see him as being as much of a politician as any other politician. Politicians generally are utilizing a form of political game theory. In a lot of ways, politics is more like a complex game of poker than anything else. I made no remark about Obama's opinions on the environment or the economy so you seem to be extrapolating far too much out of what I'm saying. I do not like or dislike Obama. My feelings towards him are null. I'd also add that his statements on Keystone XL in terms of job creation and environment also tend to indicate that a. he is concerned about the environmental impact and b. he questions the job creation aspect, which is contrary to what you expressed.

Because he hasn't asked for a single environmental concession yet, and after five years nobody is expecting him to. Again, you're saying that he's ignoring the issues and just trying to get something for himself from the deal.

You obviously ignored the CBC links that I posted. PM Harper of Canada is actually working on environmental concessions to appease Obama to obtain approval for the pipeline. Politicians will use their approval or disapproval of a certain desired legislation as political leverage. Whether there is a derived personal benefit or not depends on what they are attempting to gain. In that sense, Obama is not necessarily doing this for "his own personal benefit". If a politician is working to gain approval of something for which he has a personal stake in (ie. stock ownership), then that concession has a derived personal benefit. However, a politician may do the same without a personal stake beyond an opinion on something as being the best for society (whether it is or isn't is highly subjective) and may be acting in that interest for society. *To further clarify--when the ball is in your court, is it better to see what your adversaries are willing to bring to the table or to make demands that may be rejected? If one is impassive, then the tendency is for the adversary to increase the concessions that they are willing to offer in order to be given a positive response. The ball is in Obama's court. He does not need to demand concessions and need only sit and wait to see what will be freely offered by his adversaries. Game theory.

You presume far too much in my words. For your information and consideration, I am moderately to severely high functional autistic with rigidity in language usage and literalism. If I type something, that is precisely what I am saying--no more, no less.

My fiance lives in Alberta and the economy there is bustling according to him. The Albertan economy is not suffering because of the lack of approval for the Keystone XL pipeline. The job market in Alberta is quite healthy and actually draws people from all over Canada because of its opportunity, a fact which is fairly consistent with any oil laden area (see North Dakota's economy v. the rest of the US).

According to the EPA, there is insufficient information in regards to the environmental impacts of the Keystone XL pipeline. The EPA is the number one agency that is responsible for environmental protection (hence it's name). If the EPA says that there is not enough, it's reasonably safe to assume that there isn't enough information. Just because you may think that there has been enough "science done" does not make it so.

Well, where I am there is already a gas pipeline.

Around here every winter there is lots of really deep constant snow. Enough snow to cover up all vegetation and leave the wildlife with a pretty small food source.

The heat from the pipeline actually melts the snow exposing the vegetation underneath.

Strange as it may sound, the pipeline actually provides a food source for the animals.......

-------------

I understand the risk of spills. I also understand a spill would be very detrimental to the environment.. I don't however see a need for such extreme alarmism.

DaMod
Well, where I am there is already a gas pipeline.

Around here every winter there is lots of really deep constant snow. Enough snow to cover up all vegetation and leave the wildlife with a pretty small food source.

The heat from the pipeline actually melts the snow exposing the vegetation underneath.

Strange as it may sound, the pipeline actually provides a food source for the animals.......

-------------

I understand the risk of spills. I also understand a spill would be very detrimental to the environment.. I don't however see a need for such extreme alarmism.

Thanks and a couple of stars for the report from the frontlines so to speak. It's a nice anecdote.

charles1952
reply to post by FyreByrd

 

Dear FyreByrd,

It seems we have a misunderstanding which I'd like to try to clear up. I don't believe i engaged in cherry picking (at least I didn't intend to). May I explain my thinking?

The reason I talked about financial concerns (besides that being the focus of the OP) was because it seemed as though the conversation was drifting that way, and no one seemed to be discussing the environmental side. Then, when you made some points about the environmental risks, I switched over to see what the source article had to say.

I find your writing style disarming and effective. Kudos! It is truly refreshing.

I agree that the OP was truly about economics. Very narrowly defined economics but economics none the less.

I don't recall, and am too lazy to open another window to look, the exact number of temporary and permanent jobs this project would create. Let's call the temporary number A and the Permanent number B.

So the number of direct jobs created, without regard to term or rate, is A+B.

To that we must add the indirect jobs (really person-hours) added in support of A+B.

So let's say that five (being the liberal that I am) indirect jobs are created for each A+B.

So (A+B)5=C or the number of indrect jobs created.

So, initially we have, during the building phase, let's call it two years - A+B+C as the number of jobs created during the first two years.

Afterwhich, the number will fall to B+C. Typically "Boon" cycle.

Now the alternative that I've proposed:

Hauling the Crude products by land and water tanker fleets.

There would be no A jobs only B and C jobs.

First, we'd have an indefinite life on the B&C jobs nor would they be dependant on a single human built (and 'maintained') facility.

The number of jobs: B in the pipline sencerio would be mutiplied by hundreds probably thousands as would the C class jobs which would provide long term tax benefits for the localities involved as well as the countries involved.

Okay - The statement of "Profit over People" prevails in both economic and ecological domains.

The building of a pipeline only provides a limited number of jobs most temporary and so the BULK of the profit goes to BIG BUSINESS and MONEY; whereas, the transportation model already in place spreads the risk and the profits into a lot of hands. (As an asside: Big Business externalizes responsibility for any clean-up and damages onto the tax payer as well they under estimate their RISK for insurance purposes. Small Companys carry insurance against such incidents and the failure in their responsibilty is less expensive to WE THE PEOPLE of whatever country.)

Bring on the nukes they are a lot better for the US environment and lots of good paying full time jobs