+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 28
  1. #1
    Ultimate Member mad1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    5,046

    Obama administration rejects Keystone pipeline permit

    President Obama announced Wednesday that he will deny a permit for the Keystone XL pipeline, blaming Republicans for imposing a "rushed and arbitrary deadline" which he said did not give officials enough time.

    GOP lawmakers immediately excoriated the president for the decision. House Speaker John Boehner said Obama is "selling out American jobs for politics," and said Republicans in Congress would continue to push for the pipeline.

    Obama, in a written statement, said that deadline "prevented a full assessment of the pipeline's impact."

    "This announcement is not a judgment on the merits of the pipeline, but the arbitrary nature of a deadline that prevented the State Department from gathering the information necessary to approve the project and protect the American people," Obama said. "I'm disappointed that Republicans in Congress forced this decision, but it does not change my administration's commitment to American-made energy that creates jobs and reduces our dependence on oil."

    "The president has showed through his actions that those actions do not match that rhetoric, and by deciding to block the development of the Keystone pipeline, he has essentially decided to block the creation of 20,000 new jobs," Cantor said Wednesday.
    Obama Administration Rejects Keystone Pipeline Permit | Fox News
    Research is what I'm doing when I don't know what I'm doing

  2. #2
    Rather Large Member Beemer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Vernon, BC, Canada
    Posts
    10,201
    And for damn good reason. How about 2/3rd's of your agriculture in the States depends on the aquifer under many of the states the pipe line will rest upon?
    Quote Originally Posted by Beemer View Post
    We'll be selling dirty crude to China anyways as soon as all the assessment reports are in next year for the Gateway Pipeline Project. I'm working in the Athabasca oil fields at present and there is talk going on about the Gateway line and it's pretty much a go. The start date needs to be worked out after the assessments are in is all. A second assessment was ordered.

    The oil from the Athabasca tar sands is dirty but from what I understand it's not as dirty as the Alaska oil so the environmental concerns might be hyped a bit in that regard. The real problem is guaranteeing protection of the Ogallala Aquifer. The Ogallala Aquifer spans eight states, provides drinking water for two million people, and supports $20 billion in agriculture. A major leak could ruin drinking water for millions of Americans and devastate the mid-western U.S. economy. As well, the Keystone XL will cross an active earthquake zone.

    I'd be asking for a double walled pipe and be damned with the cost if this was going to go through these kinds of areas.

    Obama has not been the problem. The oil companies and their incompetence has been the problem not exactly boosting confidence about their operations. Oil companies are about the bottom dollar and worry about the environmental damages later if an accident happens. You can't blame Obama for being cautious.
    “Religion: Together we can find the cure.”

  3. #3
    MR Meek and Mild Epidemic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    almost Virginia
    Posts
    11,445
    Blog Entries
    2
    is this a greater perril than the aquifer is exposed to by other industry and applications Refineries, chemical factories, mass petro-chemical storage facilities?

    if a failure does occur is state of the art pipeline how much leakage is able to hit the ground?

    I would assume they would have automatic shut offs every so often so I wonder if the only real threat is the load between safey valves?

  4. #4
    Ultimate Member mad1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    5,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Epidemic View Post
    is this a greater perril than the aquifer is exposed to by other industry and applications Refineries, chemical factories, mass petro-chemical storage facilities?

    if a failure does occur is state of the art pipeline how much leakage is able to hit the ground?

    I would assume they would have automatic shut offs every so often so I wonder if the only real threat is the load between safey valves?
    Previous work[11] has shown that a ‘worst-case exposure scenario’ can be limited to a specific set of conditions. Based on the advanced detection methods and pipeline shut-off SOP developed by TransCanada, the risk of a substantive or large release over a short period of time contaminating groundwater with benzene is unlikely.[12] Detection, shutoff, and remediation procedures would limit the dissolution and transport of benzene. Therefore the exposure of benzene would be limited to leaks that are below the limit of detection and go unnoticed for extended periods of time.[11] Leak detection is monitored through a SCADA system that assesses pressure and volume flow every 5 seconds. A pinhole leak that releases small quantities that cannot be detected by the SCADA system (<1.5% flow) could accumulate into a substantive spill.[12] Detection of pinhole leaks would come from a visual or olfactory inspection, aerial surveying, or mass-balance inconsistencies.[12] It is assumed that pinhole leaks are discovered within the 14 day inspection interval, however snow cover and location (e.g. remote, deep) could delay detection. Benzene typically makes up 0.1 – 1.0 % of oil and will have varying degrees of volatility and dissolution based on environmental factors.
    Environmental risks of the Keystone XL pipeline - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Research is what I'm doing when I don't know what I'm doing

  5. #5
    Light to Counter the Dim MTAtech's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Long Island, NY, USA
    Posts
    12,215
    That's not even the reason. The issue is not whether the pipeline creates jobs or doesn't create jobs; is bad for the environment or benign to the environment, etc. The issue is that the Congress required the President to decide the issue in 60 days, which is too short a time to evaluate the proposal. As such, the President rejected the proposal and reserved the right to revisit future proposals.
    Conservatives: "If the facts disagree with our opinion, ignore the facts -- or at least misrepresent them."

  6. #6
    MR Meek and Mild Epidemic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    almost Virginia
    Posts
    11,445
    Blog Entries
    2
    as a political ploy for the election it is not great.

    really should have given him 8 months so he would reject it in the campaign season.

  7. #7
    Tech IMO Bug Finder pickel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 1999
    Location
    Jackson,MS
    Posts
    13,518

    Thumbs down No Way Jose

    Anything to rile the Republicans !!! Gotta LOVE it .

    Just wait til this pipe breaks

    Exxon Reaches $1.6M Montana Spill Settlement | Fox News

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOtab0BKOGY
    The Nation which forgets it's defenders will itself be forgotten
    You cannot make peace with dictators. You have to destroy them–wipe them out!

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    KFNL FS2004
    Posts
    11,886
    Blog Entries
    1

  9. #9
    Light to Counter the Dim MTAtech's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Long Island, NY, USA
    Posts
    12,215
    Conservatives: "If the facts disagree with our opinion, ignore the facts -- or at least misrepresent them."

  10. #10
    Ultimate Member Chuckiechan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Sacramento, El Norte
    Posts
    16,611
    Canada Pledges to Sell Oil to Asia After Obama Rejects Keystone Pipeline - Bloomberg

    They are going to send it west so it can be put on Chinese tankers. There's one rule of manufacturing - you have to send it somewhere.

    That's what Obama wanted all along. To keep supplies tight and prices high in the USA to promote green energy so his buddies can make money.

    It's has nothing to do with the so rare to be unseen "Dip weed prairie snake"...
    Obama is a deer caught in history's headlights.

  11. #11
    Light to Counter the Dim MTAtech's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Long Island, NY, USA
    Posts
    12,215
    Quote Originally Posted by Chuckiechan View Post
    Canada Pledges to Sell Oil to Asia After Obama Rejects Keystone Pipeline - Bloomberg

    They are going to send it west so it can be put on Chinese tankers. There's one rule of manufacturing - you have to send it somewhere.

    That's what Obama wanted all along. To keep supplies tight and prices high in the USA to promote green energy so his buddies can make money.

    It's has nothing to do with the so rare to be unseen "Dip weed prairie snake"...
    I don't get what your saying. The Keystone pipeline oil was for export not U.S. use.

    According to the Cornell study:
    KXL will divert Tar Sands oil now supplying Midwest refineries, so it can be sold at higher prices to the Gulf Coast and export markets. As a result, consumers in the Midwest could be paying 10 to 20 cents more per gallon for gasoline and diesel fuel. These additional costs (estimated to total $2–4 billion) will suppress other spending and will therefore cost jobs.
    Conservatives: "If the facts disagree with our opinion, ignore the facts -- or at least misrepresent them."

  12. #12
    Ultimate Member Chuckiechan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Sacramento, El Norte
    Posts
    16,611
    First of all, it has to do with jobs in the USA as opposed to Canada.

    And as far as the Cornell study is concerned, tar oil is more expensive so, that should be a good thing for a "green approach" to consumption.

    The refined products are often shipped to Mexico. The market in the Gulf and eastern areas are only so large and can only absorb so much. Oil demand is regional.

    But those are jobs in our refineries and ports, to say nothing of the upgrading that will happen.

    And since when has a democrat president turned his back on union jobs? These jobs are high paying, good jobs. Sure they won't last for ever, but some work is better than no work.

    Bottom line is we are better off with the oil than without it - unless you feel that tight supplies are best for the economy.

    One more thing: A list of clients of the Berkeley, CA firm that provided the "technical assistance" to Cornell:


    American Rivers
    Cambridge Energy Research Associates
    Conservation Law Foundation
    Conservation Services Group
    Energy Foundation
    Environmental Defense Fund
    Grand Council of the Crees (of Québec)
    Green Energy Coalition (Ontario)
    Greenpeace, U.S.A. and International
    Independent Power Producers of New York
    Maine Public Utilities Commission Staff
    Massachusetts Division of Energy Resources
    National Grid (USA)
    Natural Resources Council of Maine
    Natural Resources Defense Council
    New York City Department of Telecommunications and Energy
    Ontario Metis and Aboriginal Association
    Pace University Center for Environmental Legal Studies
    Pimicikamak Cree Nation
    Pollution Probe
    Sierra Club (Atlantic Chapter and Manitoba Branch)
    Southern States Energy Board
    SunPower Corporation
    The Greenlining Institute
    TURN (The Utility Reform Network)

    Hardly friends of the energy industry.

    Here's an article from Canada that gives you more information than you will ever want about distribution!

    How Oil Makes Canada Four (or Five) Different Countries « Nosey Parker
    Obama is a deer caught in history's headlights.

  13. #13
    Light to Counter the Dim MTAtech's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Long Island, NY, USA
    Posts
    12,215
    Chuck, please document where the jobs estimates are derived.

    The refined products are often shipped to Mexico, not because the market in the Gulf and eastern areas can only absorb so much, the reason is that the desulfurization process makes Canadian tar sands oil cost-prohibitive for use in either gasoline or diesel. I assume Mexico isn't so fussy.

    This heavy oil only yields 6 gallons of gasoline for each 42-gallon barrel of oil. That's why we import light oil, because it gives 22-24 gallons of gasoline per 42-gallon barrel of oil.

    The next best alternative to light oil, is intermediate oil, which can produce 13 to 19 gallons of gasoline per 42-gallon barrel.

    It doesn't take a Rhodes Scholar to figure out why the U.S. oil cos. closed down heavy oil refineries in the 1960s and 1970s and built light oil refineries.

    The EPA Tier 2 Regulation which went into effect January 1, 2004 limits sulfur in gasoline to 30 ppm.

    The EPA Tier 3 Regulation, which is under review now and which will be implemented in January 2013, will limit sulfur to 10 ppm.

    Thus, tar sand oil apart from being green, is very dirty, as it requires lots of energy in order to extract and process it. Moreover, because it is hard to extract and process it only is economically feasible when oil prices are high. Thus, it does nothing to lower the price of oil.

    BTW, I don't know most of the companies in that list but I do know National Grid. They are a major energy company.
    Conservatives: "If the facts disagree with our opinion, ignore the facts -- or at least misrepresent them."

  14. #14
    MR Meek and Mild Epidemic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    almost Virginia
    Posts
    11,445
    Blog Entries
    2
    It does nothing to lower the price of oil?????


    That is idiotic.

    More oil in the system keeps prices down lower than their absense.

    If canadians and oil refiners want to process it then there is profit in it even with additional costs. they are not doing it for the fun of it. With oil flowing the way it is today the money is there for it. If OPEC decides to cut production then oil prices will rise but not as much as if the oil sand was not there.

    I don't get how you come to the conclusion that just because it is only feasible while prices are high that adding millions of barrels of oil into the system do not affect prices.



    I guess you are all for stopping production of alternative fuels and energy source because they are only feasible while prices of oil are high.

  15. #15
    Light to Counter the Dim MTAtech's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Long Island, NY, USA
    Posts
    12,215
    Epi,

    It's very expensive oil and it is destined for overseas because it's high sulfur. Thus, it raises the average price of crude.
    Conservatives: "If the facts disagree with our opinion, ignore the facts -- or at least misrepresent them."

  16. #16
    Ultimate Member mad1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    5,046
    Quote Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
    Chuck, please document where the jobs estimates are derived.

    The refined products are often shipped to Mexico, not because the market in the Gulf and eastern areas can only absorb so much, the reason is that the desulfurization process makes Canadian tar sands oil cost-prohibitive for use in either gasoline or diesel. I assume Mexico isn't so fussy.

    This heavy oil only yields 6 gallons of gasoline for each 42-gallon barrel of oil. That's why we import light oil, because it gives 22-24 gallons of gasoline per 42-gallon barrel of oil.

    The next best alternative to light oil, is intermediate oil, which can produce 13 to 19 gallons of gasoline per 42-gallon barrel.

    It doesn't take a Rhodes Scholar to figure out why the U.S. oil cos. closed down heavy oil refineries in the 1960s and 1970s and built light oil refineries.

    The EPA Tier 2 Regulation which went into effect January 1, 2004 limits sulfur in gasoline to 30 ppm.

    The EPA Tier 3 Regulation, which is under review now and which will be implemented in January 2013, will limit sulfur to 10 ppm.

    Thus, tar sand oil apart from being green, is very dirty, as it requires lots of energy in order to extract and process it. Moreover, because it is hard to extract and process it only is economically feasible when oil prices are high. Thus, it does nothing to lower the price of oil.

    BTW, I don't know most of the companies in that list but I do know National Grid. They are a major energy company.



    Several energy experts who represent the oil and gas industry say the controversial Keystone XL, a 1,700-mile pipeline that would run from Canada to Texas, poses less of a risk to the environment than the estimated 50,000 miles of crude oil pipelines already crisscrossing the U.S., a network they say is safe and efficient.


    Robert Schulz, a professor at the University of Calgary's Haskayne School of Business, said a common “misperception” held by many environmental activists is that oil from Canada is “dirtier” than crude that comes from other parts of the world.

    But, Schulz argued, the contaminants in Canadian oil -- – particularly CO 2 – are reasonably similar to those coming from oil sources in Venezuela and the Middle East.

    “Eighty-four percent of the environment’s contaminants come from a car tail pipe -- not from producers. So if they [activists] really had a problem, they wouldn’t drive their cars,” added Schulz.
    As Obama Delays Controversial Keystone Oil Pipeline, Vast Network Of Pipelines Already In Place | Fox News
    Research is what I'm doing when I don't know what I'm doing

  17. #17
    Light to Counter the Dim MTAtech's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Long Island, NY, USA
    Posts
    12,215
    Robert Schulz, a professor at the University of Calgary's Haskayne School of Business, said a common “misperception” held by many environmental activists is that oil from Canada is “dirtier” than crude that comes from other parts of the world.
    That is generally true, the misleading is in the details. Oil sands are dirtier. Canada has clean conventional oil too.
    Conservatives: "If the facts disagree with our opinion, ignore the facts -- or at least misrepresent them."

  18. #18
    Ultimate Member Chuckiechan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Sacramento, El Norte
    Posts
    16,611
    Actually another reason may be at hand: The oil industry doesn't give much to democrats, so a shakedown such as slow walking permits will create a reason to contribute. That's why the unions have shut up about it.
    Obama is a deer caught in history's headlights.

  19. #19
    The Jiggawatts, Marty! tony_j15's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Joplin, MO
    Posts
    16,365
    Blog Entries
    1
    The oil industry doesn't give much to democrats, so a shakedown such as slow walking permits will create a reason to contribute.
    So you think the only reason that "the democrats" would hold up this project is because they aren't getting enough kickbacks?
    All 1.21 of them.

  20. #20
    Ultimate Member Chuckiechan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Sacramento, El Norte
    Posts
    16,611
    Yes.

    It will be approved six months before the election, as a plum in exchange for union support - in it's normal presence as fraud, intimidation, and dead people voting, etc, etc... Just business as usual.
    Obama is a deer caught in history's headlights.

Quick Reply Quick Reply

If you are already a member, please login above.

What planet do we live on?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Obama Administration Responsible for Record Gas Prices
    By sharder8 in forum DebateIMO: Politics, Religion, Controversy
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: May 7th, 2011, 12:02 PM
  2. Allow Keystone oil pipeline expansion
    By Chuckiechan in forum DebateIMO: Politics, Religion, Controversy
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: March 19th, 2011, 05:13 PM
  3. Obama Administration: Part of Defense of Marriage Act Unconstitutional
    By Theophylact in forum DebateIMO: Politics, Religion, Controversy
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: February 24th, 2011, 06:17 PM
  4. Obama/Biden administration will persue Bush crimes.
    By J.Pope in forum DebateIMO: Politics, Religion, Controversy
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: September 6th, 2008, 04:09 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Copyright 2014 All Enthusiast, Inc