January 19th, 2012, 01:22 PM #1
Obama administration rejects Keystone pipeline permitPresident 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.Research is what I'm doing when I don't know what I'm doing
January 19th, 2012, 01:49 PM #2
January 19th, 2012, 02:31 PM #3
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?
January 19th, 2012, 03:36 PM #4Previous work 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. 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. 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. Detection of pinhole leaks would come from a visual or olfactory inspection, aerial surveying, or mass-balance inconsistencies. 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.Research is what I'm doing when I don't know what I'm doing
January 19th, 2012, 04:17 PM #5
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."
January 19th, 2012, 05:11 PM #6
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.
January 19th, 2012, 08:35 PM #7
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
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!
January 20th, 2012, 01:23 AM #8
- Join Date
- Feb 2009
- KFNL FS2004
- Blog Entries
January 20th, 2012, 09:13 AM #9Conservatives: "If the facts disagree with our opinion, ignore the facts -- or at least misrepresent them."
January 20th, 2012, 12:14 PM #10
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"...Over heard in a restaurant: "How do you want your eggs?" the waitress asked. "NFL Style. Beaten"!
January 20th, 2012, 12:31 PM #11
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."
January 20th, 2012, 02:07 PM #12
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:
Cambridge Energy Research Associates
Conservation Law Foundation
Conservation Services Group
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
Sierra Club (Atlantic Chapter and Manitoba Branch)
Southern States Energy Board
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 ParkerOver heard in a restaurant: "How do you want your eggs?" the waitress asked. "NFL Style. Beaten"!
January 20th, 2012, 03:58 PM #13
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.
January 20th, 2012, 04:15 PM #14
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.
January 20th, 2012, 04:33 PM #15
It's very expensive oil and it is destined for overseas because it's high sulfur. Thus, it raises the average price of crude.
January 21st, 2012, 11:27 AM #16
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.
Research is what I'm doing when I don't know what I'm doing
January 21st, 2012, 11:51 AM #17Robert 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.
January 21st, 2012, 03:42 PM #18
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.Over heard in a restaurant: "How do you want your eggs?" the waitress asked. "NFL Style. Beaten"!
January 21st, 2012, 07:31 PM #19
The oil industry doesn't give much to democrats, so a shakedown such as slow walking permits will create a reason to contribute.All 1.21 of them.
- Join Date
- Mar 2003
- Joplin, MO
- Blog Entries
January 22nd, 2012, 03:27 AM #20
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.Over heard in a restaurant: "How do you want your eggs?" the waitress asked. "NFL Style. Beaten"!
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
By sharder8 in forum DebateIMO: Politics, Religion, ControversyReplies: 19Last Post: May 7th, 2011, 12:02 PM
By Chuckiechan in forum DebateIMO: Politics, Religion, ControversyReplies: 3Last Post: March 19th, 2011, 05:13 PM
By Theophylact in forum DebateIMO: Politics, Religion, ControversyReplies: 27Last Post: February 24th, 2011, 06:17 PM
By J.Pope in forum DebateIMO: Politics, Religion, ControversyReplies: 32Last Post: September 6th, 2008, 04:09 PM