Do you support the Keystone XL pipeline?

The US does not need the Canadian oil.

The question to ask (IMNSHO) is who benefits from building a pipeline for a product that is not required.

Oil without refineries is not very useful and refineries are ridiculously expensive to build. The US doesn't need Canadian oil, the Canadians who own the oil need US refineries to finish their manufacturing process.

that's not what we hear in Canada

What do you hear? I only hear the debate as it happens in the US and it is completely distorted by politics. How does this issue play out in Canada?

But why put another here that we get no benefit from? We have enough leaks and potential leaks already.

It is covered here almost entirely as an American political issue - with Koch brothers' $$$ featuring significantly.

http://www.canadianprogressiveworld.com/2014/11/21/david-suzuki-wont-intimidated-transcanadas-dirty-war-climate-justice-activists/

The general mood in Canada is against the oil sands and against the big pipeline projects.

A lot of coverage about the drop in oil prices and questioning why there is any need for Canadian product when the US is exporting oil.

Interesting article. I did not know that Canada has its own version of the Keystone XL pipeline that they are debating. Here is where the Canadian refineries are situated. You can see why they want that pipeline to the east. Most of those refineries actually use imported oil since it is easier to get than bringing in Canadian oil by land. Here is an interesting read about Canadian refinery capacity. (Not directly about pipelines.) http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/05/23/canada-oil-refineries_n_1539701.html

The oil is still crossing the US, just over rails and roads and other Keystone pipelines, but on a different level, if Trans Canada is willing to build it and pay for the rights, why are they being held to a higher standard than all the other companies that run pipelines all over the place? We move noxious chemicals all over this country every day. When you drive down the interstate, you can look at the DOT tags on some of those trucks and know that you are driving next to a potential disaster. That manufacturing plant on the edge of town likely has some serious stuff in the back yard. What Trans Canada wants to do is not different than what happens all the time. Why are they the whipping horse here?

You can flip that question around and ask: why don't we hold all the other companies that transport bitumen, in pipelines not built to handle bitumen, to the same standard as Trans Canada?

from: http://www.newrepublic.com/article/115624/exxon-oil-spill-arkansas-2013-how-pipeline-burst-mayflower


Companies pay the cost of building of building these things, but they don't pay the external costs incurred when there are leaks.

The only reason I can think of to support the Keystone XL is that perhaps it will be better at handling the bitumen than existing pipelines.

But based on the article I linked to in my last post, I don't think that's the case.

Because we have enough problems with the oil pipelines we have. Tar Sand oil presents a new level of problems. Its not necessary, its too expensive, its too dangerous, the by products cannot be safely dealt with except by leaving it alone.

I lived in Nebraska and I am really familiar with the Ogallala. The largest fresh water reserve in the world. By all means, lets **** it up with tar sand oil.

I'm all for that. I support consistency and responsibility. We should treat every company the same and we should hold every company responsible for spills. To me the issue with Keystone (in the one day of reading I have done on it) is all the rules have changed for this one company and this one project.

Hoping it's just the beginning, for all of the ones like it.

The problem is that the refined products are slated to go to Asia not backto Canada. The Canadians refine oil products and know how to refine Tar Sand. Let THEM do it.

Worse Than Keystone: The pipeline project you’ve never heard of

(In These Times) While the national press has focused on the controversy over TransCanada’s Keystone XL pipeline, the Canadian energy giant Enbridge is planning something even bigger. If the corporation gets its way, it could soon be transporting nearly 4 million barrels of oil every day—more than four times the amount piped by the proposed Keystone XL—across the ecologically sensitive Minnesota Northwoods.

“Northern Minnesota is becoming the superhighway for oil,” says Paul Blackburn, an attorney for Minnesota’s branch of the national climate justice group 350.org.

Enbridge’s 50,000 miles of pipelines span the continent, but the corporation is planning a massive expansion in the Great Lakes basin. This scheme could prove devastating to public and environmental health, as well as the rights of the Anishinaabeg people, who are entitled by federal treaties to use Minnesota’s natural resources to maintain their livelihoods.

The Enbridge Pipeline System, some portions of which date back to 1950, transports crude oil from production facilities in the Athabasca oil sands of Alberta, Canada, to refineries in the United States and Ontario, Canada. Approximately 2 million barrels of oil per day (bpd) are carried through a stretch of the pipeline network that extends from Gretna, Manitoba, where it crosses the border, to a major junction in Clearbrook, Minnesota. From there, a smaller number of pipelines continue on to the seaport of Superior, Wisconsin, where the oil is finally shipped to refineries throughout the Midwest and Eastern Canada. ...............(more)

The complete piece is at: http://inthesetimes.com/article/17444/worse_than_keystone

They are trying to. As Beth posted above, they have their own pipeline battle going on to try to bring tar sand oil east to replace oil they currently import for refining.

"Perhaps"? Not good enough.

Paul Krugman: Why GOP Arguments for the Keystone XL Pipeline Are a Sick Joke

Republicans supposedly care about jobs, except they don't.
By Janet Allon / AlterNet
January 12, 2015


No one, including Paul Krugman, was surprised that the first move the Republican Senate has made is to try, once again, to force President Obama to approve the Keystone XL pipeline. As the the columnist points out in Monday's New York Times, "the oil and gas industry — which gave 87 percent of its 2014 campaign contributions to the G.O.P. — expects to be rewarded for its support."

If that is not appalling enough for you, then you are a very jaded observer of American politics. But, alas, this corruption-in-plain-sight has become commonplace in American politics.

More cynical still is the absurd Republican argument in favor of an environmentally damaging project at precisely the moment when the glut of oil has caused oil prices to plunge—so it really isn't that we need more oil. No, Mitch McConnell and pals say it's all about jobs.

Puh-leaze!

Where, Krugman wonders, was this concern about jobs when "Republicans blackmail over the debt ceiling" forced cuts in federal spending that cost thousands of jobs? "Oh, and don’t tell me that the cases are completely different. You can’t consistently claim that pipeline spending creates jobs while government spending doesn’t," Krugman writes. Just not true. Most sane economists agree that Obama stimulus helped stave off an even higher unemployment rate, and Krugman argues that the recovery that seems underway may in part be due to the fact that the government on every level has finally stopped slashing spending. "When the Congressional Budget Office was asked how many jobs would be lost because of the sequester," Krugman writes, "the big cuts in federal spending that Republicans extracted in 2011 by threatening to push America into default — its best estimate was 900,000. And that’s only part of the total loss."

And that alone is more than twice the best estimate for how many jobs the pipeline would create temporarily. Once it's built, there would be very few permanent jobs.

Of course, there is one kind of government spending that Republicans like, and that they agree creates jobs: Military spending. "When it comes to possible cuts in defense contracts, politicians who loudly proclaim that every dollar the government spends comes at the expense of the private sector suddenly begin talking about all the jobs that will be destroyed," Krugman writes, ruefully. "They even begin talking about the multiplier effect, as reduced spending by defense workers leads to job losses in other industries. This is the phenomenon former Representative Barney Frank dubbed 'weaponized Keynesianism.'"

The argument for Keystone XL could be called "carbonized Keynesianism," Krugman says.

But if you really want to create jobs—and not simultaneously endanger the environment—why not opt for investment in American's crumbling infrastructure? Wouldn't that be a win-win?

Krugman's Conclusion: Ignore jobs claims about Keystone XL. The numbers are tiny, and, "the jobs argument for the pipeline is basically a sick joke coming from people who have done all they can to destroy American jobs — and are now employing the very arguments they used to ridicule government job programs to justify a big giveaway to their friends in the fossil fuel industry."

Pipeline breach spills oil into Yellowstone River
Source: Billings Gazette

HELENA — A spokesman for Gov. Steve Bullock says there has been an oil pipeline breach that spilled into the Yellowstone River near Glendive.

Spokesman Dave Parker says the Bridger Pipeline Co. spill occurred Saturday night. He says the initial estimate is that 1,200 barrels spilled. That's about 50,000 gallons.

Parker says some of the oil did get into the water but the area where it spilled was frozen over and that could help reduce the impact. He says he is unaware of any threats to public safety or health.



Read more: http://billingsgazette.com/news/local/pipeline-breach-spills-oil-into-yellowstone-river/article_61ec2266-612a-5780-a0ed-dfcb8d0f9b9a.htm