I offered a different approach to solving the Keystone XL pipeline issue but the Times did not accept it. My local paper did. The problem is that the Keystone XL is the wrong pipeline. We need to put the refining at the mine site and transport the products, after clean up, to markets in Canada and the norther tier of the U.S., rather than transporting dangerous toxic mess to the Gulf, disposing of the wastes in the Gulf states, and piping the product somewhere. http://www.wacotrib.com/opinion/columns/guest_columns/ralph-e-cooper-gue...
If you accept that burning carbon fuels is a significant contribute to global climate change, then this pipeline should not be built. Tar sands are among the dirtiest of carbon-based fuels and we should do everything we can not to burn them. Review the materials from 350.org; watch "Do the Math" at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuCGVwJIRd0 . It may not be a "feel-good" conclusion, but the logic is pretty unassailable.
Or you can deny that global climate change is happening and that humans have made a significant contribution to it. That's like burying your head in the (tar) sand.
Or you can deny that global climate change is happening and that humans have made a significant contribution to it. That's like burying your head in the (tar) sand.
10
TransCanada has fought long and hard to win approval for construction of the Keystone XL. If the U.S. approves it, TransCanada will fight long and hard to limit the amount of regulation and inspection of its operations. Complete safety and profitability are always in tension, but when safety falters, the people who own the land under the pipeline and the public at large are the only ones who suffer. Company executives will not have to give up their country club memberships or take a pay cut, but the landowners may suffer irreparable harm. ... "Regulate it?" Who? When? How often? And who will pay for it?
13
In an era in which the government's regulatory power has been captured and neutered by corporate America, we're supposed to believe that the KXL will be given sufficient, consistent safety scrutiny?
What we've learned from the BP disaster and assorted pipeline spills is that big oil will spend far more money, time and energy trying to shield the public from awareness of the ecological disasters they've wrought than trying to prevent them.
The KXL will carry Canadian oil to foreign markets so I see no legitimate reason for the US to accept the risks associated with it, and once you factor in the climate change aspect - it is a "no brainer".
What we've learned from the BP disaster and assorted pipeline spills is that big oil will spend far more money, time and energy trying to shield the public from awareness of the ecological disasters they've wrought than trying to prevent them.
The KXL will carry Canadian oil to foreign markets so I see no legitimate reason for the US to accept the risks associated with it, and once you factor in the climate change aspect - it is a "no brainer".
13
Funny how it's never the right time to put the brakes on carbon pollution.
The secondary issue with the Keystone XL is not regulation but liability. There is a huge environmental catastrophe causing a gazillion dollars in environmental and economic damage; the Feds come running in to preempt justice, then the DOJ "settles" for 10 cents on the dollar, and a clean up ensues, the the trustee won't award damages to the damaged parties and the clean up is half hearted and eventually the company declares bankruptcy and the investors hiding behind corporate veils and off shore accounts keep all their filthy lucre and the public be damned.
Regulation does nothing whatsoever regarding the secondary issue.
The secondary issue with the Keystone XL is not regulation but liability. There is a huge environmental catastrophe causing a gazillion dollars in environmental and economic damage; the Feds come running in to preempt justice, then the DOJ "settles" for 10 cents on the dollar, and a clean up ensues, the the trustee won't award damages to the damaged parties and the clean up is half hearted and eventually the company declares bankruptcy and the investors hiding behind corporate veils and off shore accounts keep all their filthy lucre and the public be damned.
Regulation does nothing whatsoever regarding the secondary issue.
13
The author fails to point out that the pipeline will not carry oil but rather a toxic solvent carrying heavy dissolved tar sand extract. The residues will be processed in Texas refineries and sold on the world market. Why should US citizens and farmland be exposed to a potential environmental disaster of enormous proportions? This has little or nothing to do with true US energy needs. It is about corporate greed..period!!
15
It would be interesting to find out how many commenters here who are banging the table about evil oil, save for the fellow from Williamsburg, have given up their cars, or switched to electric, or now take public transportation, or added solar panels to their roofs, or invested in a geothermal heating system...Anyone? Beat your chests, but don't be hypocrites when alternatives already exist at the local level.
2
I have worked in the pipeline industry and and is much safer than rail car. The oil is being shipped and railroad capacity is being increased to 700,000 barrels per day. There are over 2.4 million miles of pipelines in the US alone. How often do you hear about a leak?
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101153096#.
Also the huge increase in accidents:
Including one that happened yesterday, but I don't see any story about in in the NYT.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/102484091
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/26/business/energy-environment/accidents-...
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101153096#.
Also the huge increase in accidents:
Including one that happened yesterday, but I don't see any story about in in the NYT.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/102484091
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/26/business/energy-environment/accidents-...
1
The fact that Keystone makes absolutely no economic sense in today's petroleum marketplace seems lost on its proponents. It is designed to transport some of the world's dirtiest, heaviest, nastiest products and ones that would consume huge amounts of precious water and generate massive amounts of climate warming carbon in the processing. And worst of all, economically, global prices for petroleum are plummeting in the face of the glut of oil and gas produced buy fracking.
Then add to it the fact that all of this furor is over a pipe that would transport the stuff to Gulf refineries where it would be turned into products that would add to the glut and lower prices still further.....making it even LESS competitive in terms of the cost of its production and transportation.
Worst of all, it would simply prolong our dangerous addition to petroleum at a time when global warming is accelerating. Oceans could rise by feet and not inches in the next several decades and far far away from our daily concerns lies the potential, in Antarctica, for a total collapse of the world's krill population, a biomass which is a key element in the planet's food chain.
Far from regulation, we need to quickly pay attention to the fact that this stuff is a real risk to dangerous and potentially deadly changes to our ecosystem and we need to get off it....and fast....A debate over pipes versus chains ignores the fact that all of it is killing us.
Then add to it the fact that all of this furor is over a pipe that would transport the stuff to Gulf refineries where it would be turned into products that would add to the glut and lower prices still further.....making it even LESS competitive in terms of the cost of its production and transportation.
Worst of all, it would simply prolong our dangerous addition to petroleum at a time when global warming is accelerating. Oceans could rise by feet and not inches in the next several decades and far far away from our daily concerns lies the potential, in Antarctica, for a total collapse of the world's krill population, a biomass which is a key element in the planet's food chain.
Far from regulation, we need to quickly pay attention to the fact that this stuff is a real risk to dangerous and potentially deadly changes to our ecosystem and we need to get off it....and fast....A debate over pipes versus chains ignores the fact that all of it is killing us.
10
the author neglected at least one major difference between Alyeska and Keystone XL: namely, that the XL project is designed to ship the crude coming out the end of its pipe out of this country...because of this, a rerouting of the pipeline across Canada to one of its ocean ports will accomplish the same purpose without any exposure whatsoever to the ecosystem within the United States.
by all means possible we should make all uses of all pipelines safer.
the recent experiences in California and elsewhere, however, have put Senator Magnuson's well-meaning rallying cry at bay -- the Big Boys are indeed working as hard as ever at avoiding, wherever possible, any oversight of their pipeline operations, minimizing expenditures at greater risk to the public.
by all means possible we should make all uses of all pipelines safer.
the recent experiences in California and elsewhere, however, have put Senator Magnuson's well-meaning rallying cry at bay -- the Big Boys are indeed working as hard as ever at avoiding, wherever possible, any oversight of their pipeline operations, minimizing expenditures at greater risk to the public.
8
Modern engineering, as demonstrated in the STI-P3 underground tanks, ensures pipelines do not leak. In fact, you don't even need modern engineering: the Big Inch, the pipeline which saved America during WWII and the greatest environmental achievement of the 20th century, 70 years later still moves petroleum products from Texas to Linden, NJ without replacement for the 90% built to design specifications with asphaltic protective coatings--the last 10% due to wartime necessity was laid without the ashaltic protective coating and did require replacement.
During these cold months in the Northeast you can thank the Big Inch for not having to wake up in the middle of the night to shovel coal into the furnace to maintain heat.
During these cold months in the Northeast you can thank the Big Inch for not having to wake up in the middle of the night to shovel coal into the furnace to maintain heat.
1
Building the pipeline will decrease the current risk of transporting it by rail (benefitting uber-Obama supporter, Warren Buffett). It will mean thousands of construction jobs, building the pipeline. It will also add thousands more construction jobs, expanding refining capacity in the economically-challenged town of Port Arthur, TX. It will decrease dependence on foreign oil, much from enemies like Venezuela. It will mean lower prices at the pump, for middle-class Americans, who can't take a subway to work every day.
Of course we should kill it...
Of course we should kill it...
1
Kill it! Kill the pipelines or kill the planet. The infrastructure is what is necessary to extract the tar, oil, and gas that will make this planet unfit for human habitation. We have to keep 80% of their fossil fuels underground to keep the earth in livable shape. http://math.350.org/
7
Vetoing it ... is regulating it. That little thing " Imminent domain " should be front and center but it gets lost in the push for the Keystone XL. Americans should not have their property rights taken away by a foreign corporation for their profits ! 3 % of pipelines fail and the oil finds it way to the nearest river, just ask the citizens of Kalamazoo, Michigan where it still wreaks havoc. When the 60 year old pipeline under the Mackinaw bridge fails it could pollute 2 and possibly all 4 of the Great Lakes ! If it happens in the winter where they can't get to the leak the oil will spread under the ice. The republican congress doesn't believe in regulations, they have cut funding in anything coming close to regulation enforcement. Pipelines are already regulated and, yet, still 3% of pipelines fail.
6
Not following this story much. If this pipeline is such a good idea, and a source of jobs, why don't the Canadians build it to a port on Lake Superior, then have barges bring it down the Mississippi? Seems like this would be a lot less distance of pipeline and the crude could be easily moved on the great lakes to either east coast or gulf.
3
Michigan has already had enough trouble with filthy tar sands spills. Let's please leave the Great Lakes (and the beautiful wilderness that is Lake Superior) out of this equation, Canada can keep its own sludgy crude.
7
I read numerous articles about the sad shape of the Alaskan pipeline years ago. There were employees who lost their jobs speaking out about it. I'm sure Google would bring them up. As far as being in good shape, good is the last condition before anything is classified as fair, poor, then bad. Above good you have very good, fine, very fine, near mint, and then mint. So good to me is not good enough based on previous employee complaints there. Who is misinformed here? Me or you? Also as terrorism increases Pipelines make great targets.
3
Global warming--words that apparently can' be uttered. Rather than accelerating climate change by signing money into infrastructure to bring some of the dirtiest fuel in the world to market so that it can be burned, why not invest in carbon free energy? That would be real infrastructure for the future rather than more rust.
9
A pipeline would also be a much less costly means of transporting the Canadian bitumen. Cost, of course, is a direct measure of efficiency. Which means that the Canadian oil would be more competitive in the world market and more of it will be mined and transported.
All of this sounds good. These arguments should win the day. In a sane world.
But a world in which we all just go blithely on burning irreplaceable hydrocarbons in the open air and polluting our only source of breath and life cannot be truly sane.
The question is not just what is the right thing to do today. The real question is what is the right direction to go in for tomorrow.
As an engineer who directed teams that designed and built intelligent pigging systems I can attest that they have become quite impressive. But when the pipeline pig is the most intelligent being in the conversation mankind has a real problem. Pigs don't fix pipelines, pigs don't sit on company boards, pigs won't stop a single leak or redirect a single investment.
We need to take back our intelligence from the pigs and apply it to our probable future. Stop spending capital on enabling the destruction of our atmosphere for the simple pleasure of cheap energy. Put our efforts into renewables and efficiency.
All of this sounds good. These arguments should win the day. In a sane world.
But a world in which we all just go blithely on burning irreplaceable hydrocarbons in the open air and polluting our only source of breath and life cannot be truly sane.
The question is not just what is the right thing to do today. The real question is what is the right direction to go in for tomorrow.
As an engineer who directed teams that designed and built intelligent pigging systems I can attest that they have become quite impressive. But when the pipeline pig is the most intelligent being in the conversation mankind has a real problem. Pigs don't fix pipelines, pigs don't sit on company boards, pigs won't stop a single leak or redirect a single investment.
We need to take back our intelligence from the pigs and apply it to our probable future. Stop spending capital on enabling the destruction of our atmosphere for the simple pleasure of cheap energy. Put our efforts into renewables and efficiency.
11
There is no such thing as safe infrastructure when it comes to Keystone.
7
That's a nice shiny new pipeline. But it won't stay new, and regulation is a maze that does not serve the purpose even when anti-regulatory fervor ignored (which it shouldn't be).
A search on pipeline leaks is informative, and the graphics disturbing.
Try this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nJHzbR1yIE
or this:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/09/09/business/energy-environmen...
A search on pipeline leaks is informative, and the graphics disturbing.
Try this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nJHzbR1yIE
or this:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/09/09/business/energy-environmen...
6
"...the oil is going to be consumed one way or another" is probably the boldest stand taken in this op-ed, because it means the author is fine with planet eventually hitting +20C temperature rise.
Somebody should kindly tell him the difference between a rate and a level.
An actual bold stand would be something like "keep carbon in the ground", which was the point of the Keystone protests - make the tar sands economically nonviable, and keep it in the ground where it belongs.
Somebody should kindly tell him the difference between a rate and a level.
An actual bold stand would be something like "keep carbon in the ground", which was the point of the Keystone protests - make the tar sands economically nonviable, and keep it in the ground where it belongs.
5
+20 degrees Centigrade? Seriously?
1
Regulation is not the point. There's no reason to build it in the first place. Why take and spoil American land for a pipeline that will carry only Canadian oil destined for foreign ports? Let the Canadians carve up their own land if they want a pipeline.
10
Agreed. The president missed a great opportunity to increase protection across the board. Is it possible too that fees could have been imposed on pipeline users that would have been dedicated to ameliorating the impact of a spill? to developing technology to improve pipeline monitoring? How about legislation requiring the users to pay the cost of inspection.
Here's a thought as well, require that that legislatures of each state through which the pipeline passes to vote to waive any claims against the oil company or the federal government in the event of a spill and to indemnify the feds for clean-up costs. Let's see whose votes match their rhetoric.
Here's a thought as well, require that that legislatures of each state through which the pipeline passes to vote to waive any claims against the oil company or the federal government in the event of a spill and to indemnify the feds for clean-up costs. Let's see whose votes match their rhetoric.
1
Safe pipelines, yes. Pipeline to Canadian tar sands, no. The fact that our Canadian neighbors are willing to strip mine and thus destroy 54,000 square MILES of arboreal forest is bad enough. When you add in the environmental cost of boiling the muck to get a product suitable for shipping to a refinery, the inevitable spills and methane loading to the atmosphere it is a really, really bad project that should be blocked with every available tool. And to get your mind around that square mile figure its the area of Pennsylvania and New Jersey combined.
10
Despite what the Author of this editorial says, blocking the Keystone XL pipeline very much could stop the heavy oil of the Oil Sands from entering world markets. Right now the Oil Sands Industry is attempting to build three pipelines: south via Keystone XL pipeline, west via the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline and east via the Energy East pipeline. All three of these oil sands pipelines have now been put on hold by governments and by legal challenges. There is no reason to believe that it is a certainty that any of these pipelines will be approved and built. In fact, there is so much uncertainty with regard to all three of these pipelines that out of desperation the Alberta energy industry is now talking about building a pipeline north called the Arctic Gateway Pipeline. You have to be pretty desperate if you have to build a pipeline North to the Arctic where the costs are huge and the route is completely inefficient. However, what all of these alternative pipelines lack versus the Keystone XL pipeline is the refining capacity that only the Keystone XL pipeline can deliver by terminating in Louisiana. Canada has no heavy oil refining capacity on either its West, East or North coasts. So, the Keystone XL is absolutely the best and most important route to world markets for the Canadian heavy oil. Stopping it could very well stop the Canadian heavy oil from getting to world markets or at the very least will make it very costly to get the Canadian heavy oil to world markets.
3
Funny.....not a mention of any of the leaks from the Trans-Alaska tape worm?
Funny....not a mention of any of the broken lines carrying tar sand oil in the last three years. Or the difficulty of the clean up of tar sand oil.
Just kill the darned thing!!
Funny....not a mention of any of the broken lines carrying tar sand oil in the last three years. Or the difficulty of the clean up of tar sand oil.
Just kill the darned thing!!
5
I looked it up: there have been numerous leaks, mainly due to human error and sabotage - but I doubt ISIS or al Qaeda would ever think of attacking it, right?
No one trusts the regulatory system. With good reason. It has in many cases been bought up by special interests. As the NY Times pointed out after the BP oil disaster. And now these special interests will, hopefully, reap the whirlwind.
5
"Don’t Kill Keystone XL. Regulate It."
Did anyone ever seriously think that if it passed it would not be regulated?
This is a false dichotomy.
Did anyone ever seriously think that if it passed it would not be regulated?
This is a false dichotomy.
1
This article completely avoids the big picture. The Canadian Tar Sands occupy an area bigger than Florida, and contain around as much oil as Saudi Arabia has. It will last for many decades of heavy extraction. The pipeline project is a long term investment of capital from stockholders in the Canadian petroleum pipeline company, and in the American or foreign owned refineries and shipping companies in Texas, where this dirty oil will be refined and shipped around the world. And it is imposing on private land through imminent domain.
But we do not have decades available to continue to use petroleum at our current rate. To do so will destabilize our current environment, increase sea levels, and harm the world’s economies and potentially cause massive extinction events.
This should not about the most efficient way to continue do the harm we are doing to future generations. Building this pipeline is just doubling down on an old technology that we know we must reduce, not increase our use of. And it is using our common capital resources, and private land under imminent domain to do it.
It makes sense if we are going to use capital and private land for things like building electric transmission lines to get power from wind generation facilities into the grid. But it does not make sense to commit capital and private land to a technology we need to ultimately reduce.
But we do not have decades available to continue to use petroleum at our current rate. To do so will destabilize our current environment, increase sea levels, and harm the world’s economies and potentially cause massive extinction events.
This should not about the most efficient way to continue do the harm we are doing to future generations. Building this pipeline is just doubling down on an old technology that we know we must reduce, not increase our use of. And it is using our common capital resources, and private land under imminent domain to do it.
It makes sense if we are going to use capital and private land for things like building electric transmission lines to get power from wind generation facilities into the grid. But it does not make sense to commit capital and private land to a technology we need to ultimately reduce.
8
The science of and current trends in weather are quite clear - burning fossil fuels is a loser and their time is over. That said, oil has other uses, i.e. plastics. Obama should negotiate a deal that includes infrastructure improvements and regulation AND much more money/research for sustainable (i.e solar etc) technologies and their implementation.
Another newspaper put some basic truths of our grave situation on it's front page today: One, there is overwhelming agreement – from governments, corporations, NGOs, banks, scientists, you name it – that a rise in temperatures of more than 2C by the end of the century would lead to disastrous consequences for any kind of recognised global order. Two, scientists estimate that humans can pour roughly 565 more gigatons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere by mid-century and still have some reasonable hope of staying below 2C. Three, 2,795 gigatons is the amount of carbon contained in the proven coal, oil and gas reserves of fossil fuel companies and states – ie the fuel we are planning to extract and burn.
"You do not need much of a grasp of maths to work out the implications." Why we are even playing around with the idea of further tar sands (the dirtiest oil) exploration when we can't even burn most of what we have is beyond any rational understanding. We need to keep that dirty oil in the ground and must rethink everything.
"You do not need much of a grasp of maths to work out the implications." Why we are even playing around with the idea of further tar sands (the dirtiest oil) exploration when we can't even burn most of what we have is beyond any rational understanding. We need to keep that dirty oil in the ground and must rethink everything.
4
I'm surprised that the Times would print this article. It's not just a question of safety today, it's a question of survival for future generations. At a time when we have smart, clean technologies like solar and wind from which to get our energy, why continue to dredge up the fossil fuels that feed climate change? Greed is the only thing that keeps thoughtless people from accepting the science. We have met the enemy....
7
This flatly disregards the need to get off the human addiction to fossil fuel. Mister Waldman seems to think that we should just face facts and continue to enhance our ability to consume this junk. Its just one more pipeline right Jonathan? If youre still a climate change denier please explain why every year gets hotter. Why are California and Brazil suffering severe droughts? California produces 25% of US ag output so who is going to feed the world next year? Better fill the Keystone with water and reroute its terminus to the top of the Sierra Nevada Mountains.
6
That vaunted California agriculture you champion is built upon the backbone of the petrochemical industry, ie, Big Oil. You know, diesel fuel, insecticides, pesticides, refrigerants.....And, you want to pump water from, where?, to the Sierras to solve the problem of world hunger, thus perpetuating the use of fossil fuels. Forget about climate deniers. Climate hysterics are constantly shooting themselves in the mouth with ridiculous factoids and scenarios.
Is the smart pig capable of detecting a flack for the oil industry? If extraction of the tar sands is a given then so is the eventual destruction of the environment. Sounds like big oil is looking for some kind of deal to facilitate their wanton exploitation in the face of an increasingly embattled enterprise. Those concerned with the welfare of future generations should not be distracted by this type of ploy and continue the pressure against the dependence on fossil fuels.
2
If regulatory standards and laws held any weight at all in this country, maybe this would be a viable approach. Unfortunately, the major oil and gas companies are seemingly immune to serious penalty for the violations they incur. For example, Exxon mobile was made to pay 225 million for a violation in which the state sought billions. Time after time, settlements that amount to a drop in the bucket of the revenues of industry are reached, rendering our regulatory system hobbled. Also, this article ignores the fact that the very next administration to come to power could easily strip away these regulations Waldman speaks of. A motivated and sufficiently bribed congress could take aciton to strip such regulations, if the opportunity was made available. If it was not for regulations being so easily manipulated and skirted by industry and the possibility of the next administration or congress degrading the regulations to a large extent, this may make work. When the oil industry acutally begins to face serious punishment for endangering the health of the public, then, Mr. Waldman's well-intentioned regulatory path would be plausible. Furthermore how can we expect an agency (EPA), staffed and controlled to an extent by adminisrations and congress, to hold to rigid regulatory guidelines if those running the agency stand to benefit from less regulation, or oppose regualtion on ideological gorunds? The EPA would not have the force or will to ensure strict adherence.
2
In the nearly 40 year life of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline (TAP), Republicans have controlled the Presidency and Congress for extended periods. Yet, the regulatory standards have not been gutted for the TAP. How do you reconcile that fact with the dire predictions you make for XL Pipeline?
BP in the Gulf of Mexico
2
The challenge is requiring design, fabrication, inspections to guarantee conformance with real standards not industry controlled race to the bottom. Big, up front cash performance bonds might help and criminal penalties for violations and failures.
State regulatory commissions routinely avert their eyes regarding violations - esp. recurring violations - where republicans have control legislators. Tar sands oil, passing into US is solely sent to be refined and exported. It is sbdolutely not for domestic market.
State regulatory commissions routinely avert their eyes regarding violations - esp. recurring violations - where republicans have control legislators. Tar sands oil, passing into US is solely sent to be refined and exported. It is sbdolutely not for domestic market.
2
Rust-through is not the only source of leaks, and the Trans-Alaskan has had its share. The "pig" was not used between 1992 and 2006 and inspection only ramped up after belated detection of rust problems. Also, gunshots have caused the worst leaks and are more likely in the densely-populated lower 48. Finally, "order of magnitude" claims are so broad as to be of questionable accuracy. Please document.
9
If this project is being built to carry tar sands oil, it won't get built, unless crude oil returns to $100 a barrel or more. It is sized to allow for expansion of tar sands production capacity in Alberta. However, to commit to the investment to expand tar sands production, investors must be reasonably confident of a crude oil price of $75 a barrel or more. Otherwise, the oil produced will not cover its total cost of expanded production, investment plus operating costs.
If the oil going into the pipeline costs $75 to produce, but can only be sold at the other end for $50, then no one is going to expand production, and no one is going to commit to capacity. A pipeline like Keystone is not built on speculation. It will only be built if oil producers make firm commitments, with "take or pay" contracts, to reserve capacity in the line.
In the end, this project simply is not economic at today's oil prices. And while all the arguing is over the environment and permitting, in the end, it is economics that will rule the day. Similar to our local Vermont Yankee power plant. After decades of wrangling over safety and licensing, the plant shut down, simply because the plant was not able to compete in the wholesale electric supply market against competitors using natural gas.
If the oil going into the pipeline costs $75 to produce, but can only be sold at the other end for $50, then no one is going to expand production, and no one is going to commit to capacity. A pipeline like Keystone is not built on speculation. It will only be built if oil producers make firm commitments, with "take or pay" contracts, to reserve capacity in the line.
In the end, this project simply is not economic at today's oil prices. And while all the arguing is over the environment and permitting, in the end, it is economics that will rule the day. Similar to our local Vermont Yankee power plant. After decades of wrangling over safety and licensing, the plant shut down, simply because the plant was not able to compete in the wholesale electric supply market against competitors using natural gas.
The Keystone XL will also carry crude oil from the Bakken Formation underlying Montana, North Dakota, Saskatchewan and Manitoba.
The virulent anti-energy movements have halted the pipeline and inadvertently pushed oil in to more and more freight trains. We have seen the awful results when things go wrong....
2
label label, toil and trouble
"virulent"
"anti-energy"
What clean energy advocates are for is a move away from the old technology of burning up our planet, which would, if you'd stop fighting for dirty extreme fuels, benefits you and your children as well.
"virulent"
"anti-energy"
What clean energy advocates are for is a move away from the old technology of burning up our planet, which would, if you'd stop fighting for dirty extreme fuels, benefits you and your children as well.
5
I'd hate to be the last person holding the pipe. http://www.eweek.com/news/lockheed-martin-claims-sustainable-fusion-is-w...
Regulation would only cover the number of times the pipeline is inspected, not the inherent risks for which the inspections are looking. The benefits to the United States are negligible. It's not our oil, it won't have to leave on our ships. Our country will provide the dockworkers to oversee the automated process of loading the oil onto tankers bound elsewhere. In exchange we'll get to take over prime farmland, bisecting the country, interfering with the wildlife migration patterns. Oil drilling is regulated and ask the folks in the Gulf how well that works. It would be a ridiculous risk were it our oil. Let's do the strong regulation possible and prohibit it.
1
The article is very one-sided, and industry loving puff piece. The TAP, like every other pipeline, has leaked many many times, often because of the industry cutting corners on the very maintenance that the article describes. Leaks have gone undetected for days at a time, the danger of a pipeline over transport by rail. The industry always talks about how great the most up to date technology is, and then uses older cheaper less safe and dirtier technology, allowed by the "economically feasible" clause in their contracts, and then cutting corners on top of that in terms of construction an particularly with maintenance down the line. Spills have also occurred from people shooting up the pipeline, running into it with vehicles, and shifting ground.
Moving away from oil is a cleaner alternative, and this can be done through mild changes in driving habits (or major changes), off the shelf technology, purchase of more fuel efficient vehicles, innovation. Expensive suggestion? No, I've been driving a hybrid for 10 years, haven't had to replace the battery - bought a grid charger recently for $360 to rebalance the battery once so far, and it runs like new; driving intelligently (coasting up to a red light or stopped traffic) and with minor planning has also saved gas with no downside, no sacrifice. Innovation would also create jobs.
Moving away from oil is a cleaner alternative, and this can be done through mild changes in driving habits (or major changes), off the shelf technology, purchase of more fuel efficient vehicles, innovation. Expensive suggestion? No, I've been driving a hybrid for 10 years, haven't had to replace the battery - bought a grid charger recently for $360 to rebalance the battery once so far, and it runs like new; driving intelligently (coasting up to a red light or stopped traffic) and with minor planning has also saved gas with no downside, no sacrifice. Innovation would also create jobs.
1
Unfortunately, this editorial completely misses the point. Let’s go back to the best thing about the otherwise milquetoast Copenhagen Accord; the acknowledgement that temperature rise of 2°C is a climate-change speed bump we simply can’t afford to hit. I can argue that we need to do much better than that, but for now, let’s accept this statement as gospel. If planet Earth’s average temperatures increase by more than 2°C by 2050, we’re in deep trouble.
In the era of supercomputers and sophisticated satellite measurements, we can do the long division, and run the simulations. Scientists concur; about 565 gigatons — give or take a few billion tons — of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are all that separate our planet from a nasty future characterized by hell and high water.
But whew! At least it’s an inconceivably large number. Five hundred and sixty-five gigatons is 565 billion tons of CO2. We simply can’t possibly produce that much pollution in a century, let alone 35 years.
Except that we will. In less than a generation. And the Alberta tar sands represent 42 percent of our planet’s REMAINING carbon budget.
If we build Keystone, and the tar sands expand, then it’s game over for Mother Earth. This one project is that ruinous.
In the era of supercomputers and sophisticated satellite measurements, we can do the long division, and run the simulations. Scientists concur; about 565 gigatons — give or take a few billion tons — of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are all that separate our planet from a nasty future characterized by hell and high water.
But whew! At least it’s an inconceivably large number. Five hundred and sixty-five gigatons is 565 billion tons of CO2. We simply can’t possibly produce that much pollution in a century, let alone 35 years.
Except that we will. In less than a generation. And the Alberta tar sands represent 42 percent of our planet’s REMAINING carbon budget.
If we build Keystone, and the tar sands expand, then it’s game over for Mother Earth. This one project is that ruinous.
5
The same sensible approach can be pursued for fracking gas and oil: Set extremely high standards and regulate the activity with strict enforcement, a cost paid by the industry. I'm about as pro-environment and pro-alternative energy as can be, and I see climate change as the single greatest threat to our world, so I don't like underlying reason for pipelines. I support a carbon tax, cap and trade, and rapid, government-supported development of clean energy, and green subsidies. But the sad reality is that, for now, the market demands fossil fuels. Blocking KXL won't stop that, it will only drive -- and increase -- the risks and environmental damage elsewhere. Blocking KXL is not a "win", but in fact an environmental loss -- because the tar-sands oil will be extracted and transported, one way or another, but in a more "dirty" fashion, as long as it is profitable. So, impose the strictest standards for pipelines, require meticulous maintenance and inspections, impose painful fines and penalties for accidents.... and work tirelessly to make fossil fuels irrelevant as soon as possible.
Obama has major donors in the rail business is the reason for the veto. Really the pipeline should be a business decision with govt there to oversee, not approve or disapprove. Pipelines are the 'greenest' mode of movement since it doesn't burn fuel to transport like rail or truck does. It should be approved for that reason alone.
1
nonsense
5
Seems like the GOP could have easily gotten Obama to sign off on Keystone if they had agreed to a carbon tax in exchange.
1
This is a very bad idea. It is old technology and bad for the environment. Why not spend the money on new forward looking technologies? Oil is over. Get ahead of the energy problems by moving to another source of energy.
4
Objections to the Keystone Pipeline are not primarily about leakage but about climate change. Scientists tell us we must leave 80% of known reserves of oil, gas and coal in the ground if we're to preserve a stable climate. And Alberta tar sands are far "dirtier" (generate more greenhouse gas emissions to extract and use) than conventional oil. We should instead take the money that would be put into the KXL and monitoring it into fast tracking rooftop solar and other renewables as a method to transition to clean energy. This would also produce more, and longer-lasting jobs for Americans. Additionally, the premise of this op ed is flawed - the President and even Transcanada have made it clear that without the KXL these oil sands won't be extracted anytime soon. We can't wait to act on climate and there are economic benefits for transitioning to renewables that can't be ignored.
3
Let me add to my previous comment that while I too like better infrastructure, I don't like the enhanced environmental footprint from tar sand extraction (existing and future); moreover, the author proposes regulation as a solution but those who are the staunchest supporters of the pipeline are also those who regularly rant and rave the most against regulations in general, and when they do present regulations as making it all safe, which isn't true (see my previous comment), once a pipeline is allowed, the industry and their lackeys will do everything they can to relax the regulations and enforcement.
4
Mr. Waldman wants to regulate KXL not kill it. But he doesn't address the gorilla in the room. Petroleum coke. Petcoke is the pollutant left over from the refining process of tar sands oil. It's far worse than any other form of coal when it comes to the environment. And there will be mountains of it along the Gulf Coast unless he wants it for his back yard.
Instead of regulating a pipeline, we need to curtail any importation of tar sands oil by any means of transport.
Instead of regulating a pipeline, we need to curtail any importation of tar sands oil by any means of transport.
2
It seems to me that you are proposing some sort of journalist measuring stick. The question you are asking is: "How important is it to the advocates to either build or prevent the building of Keystone. Another way to phase the question is "Would you trade Anwar for Keystone.
As a consumer of information, I appreciate a reporter who asks questions that cannot be answered by referencing the morning talking point memo.
As a consumer of information, I appreciate a reporter who asks questions that cannot be answered by referencing the morning talking point memo.
To the current crop of lawmakers, regulation is a curse word. They want the "free" market, where in the magic of this free market, businesses regulate themselves for the good of the people. Yeah, right, and rhinos can fly!
Another point to think about is that even though there may be regulation, there has to be better enforcement. Currently agencies like the EPA and USDA have fine regulations, they just don't have the personnel to properly inspect and investigate the incidents due to cutbacks in funding from Congress. So even if you see them vote for regulations, you should also watch to see if they are properly funded.
Another point to think about is that even though there may be regulation, there has to be better enforcement. Currently agencies like the EPA and USDA have fine regulations, they just don't have the personnel to properly inspect and investigate the incidents due to cutbacks in funding from Congress. So even if you see them vote for regulations, you should also watch to see if they are properly funded.
8
This article follows the conservative playbook to a tee.
Sound reasonable, propose 'friendly' regulations, sow some discord, raise the specter of costs and dangers of opposing the espoused position.
How likely is it that these regulations are passed? When legislation as obvious as simple disclosure of ingredients and nutritional values is stalled, I find that I have zero hope that legislatures will impose regulations on Big Oil (certainly not the NJ Governor).
If, in the extremely unlikely case, those regulations were to be created, their opponents can simply defund their enforcement.
In the end, we're continuing to promote yesterday's infrastructure. We will eventually run out of oil and will have no need for this pipeline. Instead we should look ahead. Whether you view us as Americans or as a species, we have been gifted with a petroleum reserve. If we don't invest it to develop true renewable energy sources we can watch our un-heated Mac-Mansions fall and our bloated SUVs rust as we fade off into extinction.
Sound reasonable, propose 'friendly' regulations, sow some discord, raise the specter of costs and dangers of opposing the espoused position.
How likely is it that these regulations are passed? When legislation as obvious as simple disclosure of ingredients and nutritional values is stalled, I find that I have zero hope that legislatures will impose regulations on Big Oil (certainly not the NJ Governor).
If, in the extremely unlikely case, those regulations were to be created, their opponents can simply defund their enforcement.
In the end, we're continuing to promote yesterday's infrastructure. We will eventually run out of oil and will have no need for this pipeline. Instead we should look ahead. Whether you view us as Americans or as a species, we have been gifted with a petroleum reserve. If we don't invest it to develop true renewable energy sources we can watch our un-heated Mac-Mansions fall and our bloated SUVs rust as we fade off into extinction.
7
I know I am a nobody but if it were upto me I would just veto the Keystone XL.PERIOD. My reason - the picture accompanying this article. Look at the pristine Nature and then look at the route of the future pipeline. How incongruous! How ugly! And if there is a leak, imagine the death and destruction of this precious, pristine beauty, Forever! Yes, we have 'Smarter Pigs'. But it is a gizmo after all. And as everyone knows any fail-safe gizmo can fail. And for what? Just to get some low-grade oil from Canadian Tar Sands when we can as easily get cheap high-grade oil from Saudi Arabia. We know we have the oil from the tar-sands and fracking if for some reason we cannot get oil from the Saudis. So why a pre-emptive strike to destroy Nature and our Water? If Canada wants it let them get their oil from the tar-sands and destroy their landscape akin to that of Mars. They always do what's best for their country and support us in words only if at all. So why we succumbing to them? First Israel, now Canada, our Allies! With friends like these, who needs enemies!!
4
Regulation in the US has become a farce. Just review the BP Gulf Oil disaster. No one goes to jail, they pay a fine, which the corporation then challenges. What happens when the oil disasters occur and I mean disasters. They will happen and will pollute our beautiful country just so that Canada can sell its sludge easier! Come now, how silly is that?
10
Forget dangerous oil pipelines. As a Californian whose Winter has now turned into "Wither" I'm begging for WATER pipelines.
1
Keep the oil pipelines coming. And let's make more key punch machines and floppy disks too.
This is old technology. The 20th century certainly was the American Century, but it's behind us now. If we don't want to be left behind we need to join the modern world which has no place for filthy tar sands.
This is old technology. The 20th century certainly was the American Century, but it's behind us now. If we don't want to be left behind we need to join the modern world which has no place for filthy tar sands.
1
Don't regulate it. Kill it! It serves no valid USA purpose and is intended to transport a product which is pollution-intense to produce and pollution-intense to refine and use.
1
I wonder if the project is still cost effective given the drop in oil prices. If we wait longer will they just cancel it? Tar sands is expensive to extract and process.
4
I must disagree with what you say about the XL. You are correct that the tar sands oil will be extracted by Canada regardless - but that is not what this is about, since the contents of the pipeline evidently have nothing to do with us. The oil will come across our Northern border, down the country and out the South side to the rest of the world. Lots of jobs may be created by the construction, but when that is done the jobs will go away, except for monitoring such as you describe. In addition, our lands will be continuously subject to XL failure, no matter the odds, so we really gain little from the whole project. If the oil will be extracted regardless, then I say do that, and ship it across Canada.
1
So the banners that say “If you build it, it will leak” should also be followed by “But if you don’t build it, you’ll have a lot more leaks.”
---------------------------------------
The slogan should be, "if you don't build it, it will EXPLODE'. Transporting crude by train works well for Buffett who is heavily invested in CP and other railroad companies. Going by the accident we witnessed in Quebec town last year and by the concerns expressed by denizens of towns through which railroad runs, a pipeline with frequent monitoring is the way to ensure safe transport of Tar Sands bitumen to refineries in the gulf coast. Already, the crude is being transported on rail and on roads, with grave consequences for carbon emissions and because of potentially devastating accidents.
Will there be a pipeline leak ever, despite the best intentions and protection mechanisms? Sure. We rubberneck but do not stop driving on freeway after witnessing an accident.
---------------------------------------
The slogan should be, "if you don't build it, it will EXPLODE'. Transporting crude by train works well for Buffett who is heavily invested in CP and other railroad companies. Going by the accident we witnessed in Quebec town last year and by the concerns expressed by denizens of towns through which railroad runs, a pipeline with frequent monitoring is the way to ensure safe transport of Tar Sands bitumen to refineries in the gulf coast. Already, the crude is being transported on rail and on roads, with grave consequences for carbon emissions and because of potentially devastating accidents.
Will there be a pipeline leak ever, despite the best intentions and protection mechanisms? Sure. We rubberneck but do not stop driving on freeway after witnessing an accident.
1
During all the opposition to the Keystone pipeline, I never for a moment thought it would be unregulated. Is there anything the government doesn't regulate?
You'd rather live in a country with no government regulation? Maybe you'd prefer to live in Bangladesh where there's no building inspection, or bribes are paid to avoid it. Then a 7-story building collapses killing hundreds of factory workers. Or maybe you'd like to move your children to India where 23 school children were killed by eating food that was prepared in drums which previously held cyanide. These are just 2 small examples of what a lack of regulation can result in. Goverment regulation is a GOOD thing. You should thank your lucky stars that you live in a country that provides adequate regulations to protect its citizens and the environment.
1
You have got to be kidding. No one has maintained a good pipeline yet. In the past, Keystone has let pipelines spill for weeks and not cleaned them up. Plus, we should not have one, anyway.
1
Though sensible, I think the administration should view the issue of Keystone XL as an opportunity to negotiate an increase in the gasoline user's fee also -- which is used to maintain the nation's (bankrupt) highway infrastructure fund. Republicans in Congress might agree to an increase in a user's fee since it would not be a "general" tax increase and because Republicans recognize the benefit to the country and their constituents of putting the highway trust fund on a sound financial footing.
Why is the choice veto the pipeline or have safe pipelines?
KXL should be vetoed because we cannot burn the oil in the Canadian tar sands without destroying the U.S. as we know it in the future through climate change.
A law to appropriately regulate pipelines is a great idea. Let's work on it and attach it to the next worthwhile pipeline approval. But don't sell the future for some false equivalency.
KXL should be vetoed because we cannot burn the oil in the Canadian tar sands without destroying the U.S. as we know it in the future through climate change.
A law to appropriately regulate pipelines is a great idea. Let's work on it and attach it to the next worthwhile pipeline approval. But don't sell the future for some false equivalency.
3
this is exactly the right proposal for the future: a safer, more robust infrastructure bringing us the carbon fuels that can drive the planet into climate catastrophe.
it's been said that the keystone pipeline, if completed, will have a trivial impact on the actual emission of carbon into the atmosphere. and, narrowly defined, that is true.
what's missed in that analysis is symbolic: rejecting the keystone pipeline would deliver a decisive message to the public about of the seriousness of climate change. it would signal that a radically new and different infrastructure is necessary for our future social, economic and environmental welfare. so i say: safe or not, rust or not -- kill the keystone pipeline.
it's been said that the keystone pipeline, if completed, will have a trivial impact on the actual emission of carbon into the atmosphere. and, narrowly defined, that is true.
what's missed in that analysis is symbolic: rejecting the keystone pipeline would deliver a decisive message to the public about of the seriousness of climate change. it would signal that a radically new and different infrastructure is necessary for our future social, economic and environmental welfare. so i say: safe or not, rust or not -- kill the keystone pipeline.
2
I agree with the gist of the author's comments, but I wonder: could even a "smart pig" have prevented the oil spills into the Yellowstone or Kalamazoo Rivers? Or are these events totally unpredictable and just part of the price we pay for moving oil across the country in the twenty-first century?
I also think it unrealistic that the current Congress would grant the authority necessary to regulate pipelines in any serious way. And if they did, would they then attach a rider to an unrelated bill to cut off funding for that agency?
I also think it unrealistic that the current Congress would grant the authority necessary to regulate pipelines in any serious way. And if they did, would they then attach a rider to an unrelated bill to cut off funding for that agency?
1
Mark nails the real issue here:
"If I have a criticism, its that the opponents of the XL didn't focus enough on the real problem -- the outsized environmental damage from tar sands extraction -- and not on the pipeline itself."
Exactly. If one recognizes -- as inevitably one must -- that nothing the US does is going to stop Canada from extracting oil from its tar sands, the question should be: What's the most environmentally sound way of getting that tar-sands oil to where it's going to be refined? Pipelines to the east and/or west coasts of Canada (from where much of it will be forwarded by ships to Gulf Coast refineries)? Railroad cars? Trucks?
Or the Keystone pipeline?
The Keystone pipeline, obviously. It seems like a no-brainer, once one recognizes that the US can't stop Canada from extracting oil from its tar sands. To their credit, many savvy critics of the Keystone pipeline recognize that this is where the real battle should be fought. But it's sheer folly to think that battle can be won by resisting the Keystone pipeline. Canada has made very clear that it has alternative ways of getting that oil to market, and that it has no intention of letting those tar sands go unexploited.
"If I have a criticism, its that the opponents of the XL didn't focus enough on the real problem -- the outsized environmental damage from tar sands extraction -- and not on the pipeline itself."
Exactly. If one recognizes -- as inevitably one must -- that nothing the US does is going to stop Canada from extracting oil from its tar sands, the question should be: What's the most environmentally sound way of getting that tar-sands oil to where it's going to be refined? Pipelines to the east and/or west coasts of Canada (from where much of it will be forwarded by ships to Gulf Coast refineries)? Railroad cars? Trucks?
Or the Keystone pipeline?
The Keystone pipeline, obviously. It seems like a no-brainer, once one recognizes that the US can't stop Canada from extracting oil from its tar sands. To their credit, many savvy critics of the Keystone pipeline recognize that this is where the real battle should be fought. But it's sheer folly to think that battle can be won by resisting the Keystone pipeline. Canada has made very clear that it has alternative ways of getting that oil to market, and that it has no intention of letting those tar sands go unexploited.
1
So if passing a law against rape in California won't do anything to deter it's occurrence in say, Colorado, by this argument, we shouldn't have said law. By this logic, we should build rape houses so there is a safe place for it to happen. This pipeline represents a violent act of rape against the planet and our people. We must not participate even if we can't stop the Canadians from harming us all.
2
Watch this video clip by Robert Reich: http://front.moveon.org/pres-obama-stop-keystone/#.VPnKdWahnmG
Then take a look at what is happening to farmers in California's Central Valley. Not clear to me where the food that they grow, and now cannot because of the drought is going to come from. Now imagine what would be the effect of a pipeline spill over the Ogalala aquifer, water supply for a large section of the country from South Dakota to Texas (do a search on Ogalala Aquifer map). The resulting pollution would make the water undrinkable or useable beneath And once it is poisoned, you can't wash it out like a bathtub. All so that the dirtiest oil in the world can be processed to pour even more GHG into the atmosphere and make the changes to the environment even worse than they are. All for about 50 jobs.
Then take a look at what is happening to farmers in California's Central Valley. Not clear to me where the food that they grow, and now cannot because of the drought is going to come from. Now imagine what would be the effect of a pipeline spill over the Ogalala aquifer, water supply for a large section of the country from South Dakota to Texas (do a search on Ogalala Aquifer map). The resulting pollution would make the water undrinkable or useable beneath And once it is poisoned, you can't wash it out like a bathtub. All so that the dirtiest oil in the world can be processed to pour even more GHG into the atmosphere and make the changes to the environment even worse than they are. All for about 50 jobs.
4
"When demand eventually drives up the price of oil....."
Mr. Waldman comes very close to admitting the current reality: the Athabascan tar sands are not economic at current oil prices.
And "when demand eventually ..." CO2 will be priced, one way or another.
Lost in this discussion is the obvious: if the Canadians want a pipeline to export this oil, why the heck can't they build a much shorter pipeline to the major port of Vancouver BC? There are two reasons:
* the citizens of BC are resolutely against it, and the Harper government cannot jam it down their throats
* In fact nobody wants that diluted bitumen as much as Houston-area refineries.
The refineries in the Houston area were build to handle the heavy Venezuelan and southern Mexican crude, which are in decline.
Mining these heavy crudes and producing usable fuels from them causes much more environmental damage and a wider pollution stream than better-grade oil. No rational judgement can be made about their utility without looking at all the costs, including those externalized at present.
Look at the total cycle -- including the diluent, and follow the pet coke.
Basically the XL pipeline is about the US doing a dirty refining business that Canada won't do for itself, and about Americans producing very high amounts of CO2 to sell cheap fuels to countries that "off shore" jobs Americans don't get.
This all lose-lose for the vast fraction of Canadian and American citizens.
Mr. Waldman comes very close to admitting the current reality: the Athabascan tar sands are not economic at current oil prices.
And "when demand eventually ..." CO2 will be priced, one way or another.
Lost in this discussion is the obvious: if the Canadians want a pipeline to export this oil, why the heck can't they build a much shorter pipeline to the major port of Vancouver BC? There are two reasons:
* the citizens of BC are resolutely against it, and the Harper government cannot jam it down their throats
* In fact nobody wants that diluted bitumen as much as Houston-area refineries.
The refineries in the Houston area were build to handle the heavy Venezuelan and southern Mexican crude, which are in decline.
Mining these heavy crudes and producing usable fuels from them causes much more environmental damage and a wider pollution stream than better-grade oil. No rational judgement can be made about their utility without looking at all the costs, including those externalized at present.
Look at the total cycle -- including the diluent, and follow the pet coke.
Basically the XL pipeline is about the US doing a dirty refining business that Canada won't do for itself, and about Americans producing very high amounts of CO2 to sell cheap fuels to countries that "off shore" jobs Americans don't get.
This all lose-lose for the vast fraction of Canadian and American citizens.
2
Not a word about the landowners who don't want this pipeline running across their property. Does Mr. Waldman (and his Koch Bros. Masters) really favor using eminent domain to take land from Americans for the benefit of foreign corporations?
2
When you label someone with something people know is not true, you undermine your case. Jonathan Waldman is not a Koch minion. Please try to avoid making more enemies in the search to get the truth out.
2
The objection to the Keystone pipeline isn't nearly the pantless strawman that this editorial would imply. As far as I can tell there are at least three very legitimate concerns, none of which are adressed here. The dispute isn't some grand crusade against pipelines in general, it is actually against this particular pipeline.
The first concern has to do with its route through America's largest and most important aquafer where any spill could be potentially catastrophic. Not all leaks are created equal. I am not an engineer but this is a legitimate concern that I would like to see fully addressed.
The second concern has to do with the type of oil being pumped from the tar sands. It is some of the dirties oil on earth. The current price of oil makes its extraction almost cost prohibitive to do at scale. Building a pipeline will bring down that cost... that's why they want to build it. Despite what the author says, it is far from clear that the majority of this oil will ever see the market place. It may simply cost too much. If you care about our role in climate change it may be a bad idea to subsidize one of the worst offenders.
The final concern is process. If after all the evidence is in and research is conducted, and if Obama decides it is still worth doing, than so be it. However, I do not like know-nothing, anti-science, climate denialists preempting the president and making important decisions before the data is analyzed and courts cases are resolved.
The first concern has to do with its route through America's largest and most important aquafer where any spill could be potentially catastrophic. Not all leaks are created equal. I am not an engineer but this is a legitimate concern that I would like to see fully addressed.
The second concern has to do with the type of oil being pumped from the tar sands. It is some of the dirties oil on earth. The current price of oil makes its extraction almost cost prohibitive to do at scale. Building a pipeline will bring down that cost... that's why they want to build it. Despite what the author says, it is far from clear that the majority of this oil will ever see the market place. It may simply cost too much. If you care about our role in climate change it may be a bad idea to subsidize one of the worst offenders.
The final concern is process. If after all the evidence is in and research is conducted, and if Obama decides it is still worth doing, than so be it. However, I do not like know-nothing, anti-science, climate denialists preempting the president and making important decisions before the data is analyzed and courts cases are resolved.
3
A frequent assertion of Keystone pipeline critics:
"Isn't it true that Keystone will bring Canadian crude to be refined in USA and then to be exported (probably to Japan)?"
The Gulf Coast refineries will sell the finished products to the highest bidder, just as they always have and always will. Historically, the highest bidder has nearly always been the domestic market. That probably will remain so, since it costs a great deal to transport refined products across oceans, but no oil company is going to commit never to sell to Japan -- or to China, or to anyone else. The practical reality, however, will remain what it's always been: the Gulf Coast refineries sell their finished products t0 domestic buyers, because that's who offers to pay the most for it.
"Isn't it true that Keystone will bring Canadian crude to be refined in USA and then to be exported (probably to Japan)?"
The Gulf Coast refineries will sell the finished products to the highest bidder, just as they always have and always will. Historically, the highest bidder has nearly always been the domestic market. That probably will remain so, since it costs a great deal to transport refined products across oceans, but no oil company is going to commit never to sell to Japan -- or to China, or to anyone else. The practical reality, however, will remain what it's always been: the Gulf Coast refineries sell their finished products t0 domestic buyers, because that's who offers to pay the most for it.
My understanding is we don't need the XL pipeline except to carry dirty oil to refineries specially built for the dirty oil. Why is the public having to bail out the refinery owners and the producers of dirty oil?
1
I would be a lot more willing to accept a pipeline if it truly meant the end of oil being taken over rail. I do not believe for a second though that this is the case. This pipeline to me seems to be complete additive. They will continue to increase rail travel, while fighting all regulations, with or without a pipeline. It's called an addiction. If billionaires in Texas, North Dakota and other prairie states want to absolutely destroy their region then fine, but spare the rest of us and especially the beautiful Pacific Northwest. For me personally, I am willing to pay the additional costs--whatever they may be in order to end this addiction. I own a car but I bike to work and try to drive as little as possible. Please stop subsidizing our addiction and give my generation a chance to live in a cleaner world.
2
Another common misconception: confusing tar-sands oil with shale oil:
"If shale oil is a bad thing (and I believe it is) and we cannot stop Canada from marketing it, does it automatically follow we should abet them in their endeavors?"
Shale oil is largely extracted by fracking. It's not Canada that's leading the way in that -- it's the US. Check out Williston, North Dakota, for example. So much shale oil is being produced in the US that producers are pressing for exceptions to the long-standing prohibition against exporting oil produced in the US. A limited exemption has already been granted, and the oil companies are pressing for more.
So don't blame shale oil on the Canadians.
"If shale oil is a bad thing (and I believe it is) and we cannot stop Canada from marketing it, does it automatically follow we should abet them in their endeavors?"
Shale oil is largely extracted by fracking. It's not Canada that's leading the way in that -- it's the US. Check out Williston, North Dakota, for example. So much shale oil is being produced in the US that producers are pressing for exceptions to the long-standing prohibition against exporting oil produced in the US. A limited exemption has already been granted, and the oil companies are pressing for more.
So don't blame shale oil on the Canadians.
You mean like regulating rail traffic and railroad car weight? Regulations are needed in a gazillion areas, but many of which, even if created, are way too late.
2
better idea, use it for water not oil.
1
Sorry, this article is totally unconvincing. If it were easy for the Canadians to transport the oil by an alternate route, they would have done it. You address only the problem of pipeline leaks, but for us who oppose it, this is not the principal concern. The main problem, and it is indeed formidable, is the development of the tar sands themselves. This is an environmental disaster and should be stopped at any cost.
4
Sad that we have seen two environmental disasters as a direct result of not having the pipeline, eg wrecked oil trains burning out of control.
I agree that pipelines should be tightly regulated, but they are far easier to regulate than train tracks, and can be less exposed to outside factors that increase their dangers. Additionally, they are safer then rail barrel for barrel.
The alternative to this pipeline is one through canada to the pacific ports, and then to China via tankers. Yup, let's move more oil by tanker because the EXXON Valdez has clearly shown how safe and effective that is, and how minimal the impact of damages are in the seas of the pacific northwest!
The pipeline would generate good economic activity for the US, minimize the possible damages of moving the oil to the refineries if built and regulated well, and perhaps make the US less dependent upon Fracking which has another whole set of potential/real dangers... If there is oil, it will be harvested, our mission is to make that as harmless as possible, since we cannot prevent this, especially extra-territorially.
Clean energy policy is NOT a NO energy policy. Shame on the administration here for not taking leadership in cleaning up and streamlining a dirty industry and using this as a way to control and guide, vs try to stop. I for one don't want to shiver in a cave in the dark to save the planet, there are better ways.
I agree that pipelines should be tightly regulated, but they are far easier to regulate than train tracks, and can be less exposed to outside factors that increase their dangers. Additionally, they are safer then rail barrel for barrel.
The alternative to this pipeline is one through canada to the pacific ports, and then to China via tankers. Yup, let's move more oil by tanker because the EXXON Valdez has clearly shown how safe and effective that is, and how minimal the impact of damages are in the seas of the pacific northwest!
The pipeline would generate good economic activity for the US, minimize the possible damages of moving the oil to the refineries if built and regulated well, and perhaps make the US less dependent upon Fracking which has another whole set of potential/real dangers... If there is oil, it will be harvested, our mission is to make that as harmless as possible, since we cannot prevent this, especially extra-territorially.
Clean energy policy is NOT a NO energy policy. Shame on the administration here for not taking leadership in cleaning up and streamlining a dirty industry and using this as a way to control and guide, vs try to stop. I for one don't want to shiver in a cave in the dark to save the planet, there are better ways.
Mr. Waldman does not seem to recognize global warming, the warming caused by humans pumping carbon into the air, is existential for much of life on earth. Building more clever pipelines does not address this problem.
When we realized atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons was harming our children, we negotiated treaties and banned the practice. Spewing carbon is destroying the web of life we depend on and our children, grandchildren and their children will be paying the price of our refusal to act.
In the near term, the area around the tar sands is being destroyed. Google "tar sands before and after" to get and idea of the destruction extracting the bitumen in the first place entails. Huff Post Alberta has many images of the oil being dumped on the surface and destroying the local environment. First Nations monitors have documented tens of thousands of barrels of spilt petroleum the drillers seem to not be concerned about.
Drilling the Alberta Tar Sands is a disaster on its own account and can only speed the collapse of the climate that sustains us all.
When we realized atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons was harming our children, we negotiated treaties and banned the practice. Spewing carbon is destroying the web of life we depend on and our children, grandchildren and their children will be paying the price of our refusal to act.
In the near term, the area around the tar sands is being destroyed. Google "tar sands before and after" to get and idea of the destruction extracting the bitumen in the first place entails. Huff Post Alberta has many images of the oil being dumped on the surface and destroying the local environment. First Nations monitors have documented tens of thousands of barrels of spilt petroleum the drillers seem to not be concerned about.
Drilling the Alberta Tar Sands is a disaster on its own account and can only speed the collapse of the climate that sustains us all.
2
What you say here is all true and god forbid we have another rail disaster like we had in Quebec with over 40 deaths. But KXL is not really about pipeline integrity and safety, it is really about where we stand on climate change and environmental degradation. Those are the real reasons for not wanting the pipe to go ahead.
So we send a signal to the Cdn government and the tar sand developers that it is no longer business as usual but in the meantime we live with riskier trains. In my opinion we don't really need to increase pipe inspections but we really, really, really need to increase the frequency and the quality of train and track inspections.
So we send a signal to the Cdn government and the tar sand developers that it is no longer business as usual but in the meantime we live with riskier trains. In my opinion we don't really need to increase pipe inspections but we really, really, really need to increase the frequency and the quality of train and track inspections.
1
I noticed that the NY TIMES picks for tbese comments are almost all pro Keystone pipe line. That is kind of surprising at best, as the pro writers all say that regulating the oil pipe would be best. Has there been anything in this country where corporations hold themselves at these laws. Wow what a short memory everyone has. All catastrophic oil leaks happened because Corporations broke the rules, broke the law and were absolutely sure they would get away with and they did.
Most of these comments seem to come from people in the oil industry or have invested in it.
All these new jobs are temp jobs and will be out of work immediately after the work is over, this at best a false argument.
Improving the infra structure is an endless jobs and will need workers until the end of times. Bringing up the job market for this pipe line is at best a false argument.
Most of these comments seem to come from people in the oil industry or have invested in it.
All these new jobs are temp jobs and will be out of work immediately after the work is over, this at best a false argument.
Improving the infra structure is an endless jobs and will need workers until the end of times. Bringing up the job market for this pipe line is at best a false argument.
1
Safety isn't really the point as we should be cutting back on our use of fossil fuels, period! Their use is the main cause of global warming and the "dirty" oil from the Alberta tar sands is particularly bad. We need to start cutting back now as the longer we wait the more we'll need to upset our way of life to slow down the warming.
It's a sad state of affairs when people are willing to destroy so much just to make a buck!!
It's a sad state of affairs when people are willing to destroy so much just to make a buck!!
1
While it is true that trains and other ground transport spill more frequently, pipelines spill far more catastrophically:
The Kalamazoo river spill cost 1.2 Billion after gushing for 17 hours. The Enbridge Line 61 here in Wisconsin would gush that much oil in 25 minutes.
And the "smart-pigs" the author touts come in third behind pipeline workers and ordinary citizens in spotting potentially catastrophic leaks. In short, smart-pigs ain't so smart. Neither is investing in an infrastructure that will slowly cook our planet to death.
The Kalamazoo river spill cost 1.2 Billion after gushing for 17 hours. The Enbridge Line 61 here in Wisconsin would gush that much oil in 25 minutes.
And the "smart-pigs" the author touts come in third behind pipeline workers and ordinary citizens in spotting potentially catastrophic leaks. In short, smart-pigs ain't so smart. Neither is investing in an infrastructure that will slowly cook our planet to death.
4
I cannot believe in the concept of "well regulated" at this time. It takes funding, manpower, and intelligent, big picture vision to have competent regulation of industries. The USA does not have that mentality, or, at least, the lawmakers and the lawbreakers do not have it. When industry lobbyists are writing the laws and their paid shills in Congress are fighting for them as if their lives depended on it (which their political lives actually do,) then we cannot expect regulations that will protect the rest of us. A right-sized government must be able to assertively regulate industries to balance the forces of profit at all costs against the health and safety of all citizens. Realistic government regulation with an abundance of resources needed for the job is a goal I will happily pay more taxes to achieve, but we are nowhere near accomplishing that, and many are actively working tirelessly to prevent it.
In 2013 a West, Texas fertilizer plant exploded killing 15 people and wounding another 226. "A lack of fire codes was repeatedly cited in the report, with investigators noting Texas didn't have a fire code and small counties are prohibited from having them. But, the chairman (US Chemical Safety Board) said, local fire departments need fire codes to 'hold industrial operators accountable for safe storage and handling of chemicals.'" ~ CNN.com
So, not only do we not have adequate regulations, we have lawmakers who prevent our having them.
In 2013 a West, Texas fertilizer plant exploded killing 15 people and wounding another 226. "A lack of fire codes was repeatedly cited in the report, with investigators noting Texas didn't have a fire code and small counties are prohibited from having them. But, the chairman (US Chemical Safety Board) said, local fire departments need fire codes to 'hold industrial operators accountable for safe storage and handling of chemicals.'" ~ CNN.com
So, not only do we not have adequate regulations, we have lawmakers who prevent our having them.
3
I think your argument ignores ethics in favor of supposed inevitability. Also where your logic is weak is in the fact that the U.S. can more easily consume the tar sand oil than any other country if we were to build the pipeline. Thus it is easier for us to drive up the demand than any other country. This is to say, most likely the tar sand oil would be consumed more rapidly if we were to build a pipeline. Regardless, the US saying no to Keystone is an ethical decision. Or at least that is what should be guiding our decision. As a citizen of the US, I don't want to support the destruction of the boreal forest--a forest that provides a significant amount of oxygen for our atmosphere. I also don't want to support the contamination of billions of gallons of fresh water when there are places in the world that struggle everyday to find that very water. I also don't want to contribute anymore than I already do to increasing the amount of carbon-dioxide in our atmosphere, which is in turn melting our poles and causing water levels to rise, putting coastal cities and island countries, such as the Maldives, in jeopardy. America should be moving away from oil, not toward it. Keystone is our chance to say that America is ready to move in that direction.
2
The check-mark this pictures doesn't show is for carbon emissions.
1
Mister Waldman, I think you egregiously undervalue the effect of the American people and President Obama blocking this pipeline, or even publicly hobbling it. Although you raise some interesting suggestions regarding regulation, a leaky pipe, albeit potentially disastrous, is but one concern germane to the extraction, transportation and burning of fossil fuels. Have you forgotten the seriousness of anthropogenic global climate change and the mountains of empirical and unequivocal evidence for it? Silly and pernicious concessions, such as “If the oil is going to be consumed one way or another…” cannot persist if we are to mitigate our toxic influence on our only viable planet. Moreover, protest like this will foment support for cleaner energy sources, as industries will shift to match the expressed will of the people.
This trend of burying the cold hard truth, that inevitably human population growth and consumption must change, under a shiny technology is all too common. Look at the 2 million dollar robot you say, look at the will of the American, I say, and if (s)he has the fortitude to consume less.
This trend of burying the cold hard truth, that inevitably human population growth and consumption must change, under a shiny technology is all too common. Look at the 2 million dollar robot you say, look at the will of the American, I say, and if (s)he has the fortitude to consume less.
1
First, water is more precious than oil. KXL would go through (they moved the pipeline a little, but not enough) this country's most valuable resource -- the Ogallala Aquifer. Second, if we as a nation spent as much money on renewables as big energy, we wouldn't be assuming the tar sands have to be extracted. Third, a vision gretaer than the status quo must happen or we and this planet's life will expire. Caveats like I'm not for or against the pipeline are disingenous at best. Of course, this is a pro-pipeline opinion piece. Where was the equal time to renewables?
2
"Don’t Kill Keystone XL. Regulate It". Kind of like the GOP wants to do with the ACA?
2
1. Given the current and projected prices for oil this project is not economically justified. 2. The environmental damages will be irreversible (remember how they said the Alaska Pipeline would never leak and that there would never be a tanker accident?). 3. The only reason all the Republicans have a hard on for this thing is because they've been bought by Koch Industries.
1
I agree that there should be more inspections and greater oversight. I also agree that fines and penalties should be raised significantly.
But there should also be a requirement that companies hold enough cash reserves, in special accounts, to cover ALL of the costs associated with a catastrophic failure.
My guess is that projects like Keystone XL wouldn't be economically feasible if private business had to account for all the real, and hidden, costs that a major failure would create. That is one of the major problems with the industry- it is very profitable so long as everything goes well and if the public is ultimately on the hook for the costs of environmental catastrophe.
I could support Keystone XL provided a reasonable estimate of the potential costs of failure were generated and the company was required to maintain a fund several hundred times larger than that in case something does (and something will) go wrong.
But there should also be a requirement that companies hold enough cash reserves, in special accounts, to cover ALL of the costs associated with a catastrophic failure.
My guess is that projects like Keystone XL wouldn't be economically feasible if private business had to account for all the real, and hidden, costs that a major failure would create. That is one of the major problems with the industry- it is very profitable so long as everything goes well and if the public is ultimately on the hook for the costs of environmental catastrophe.
I could support Keystone XL provided a reasonable estimate of the potential costs of failure were generated and the company was required to maintain a fund several hundred times larger than that in case something does (and something will) go wrong.
1
Written on the day a 2nd oil train derailed and exploded. It's time to move on to renewables Mr. Waldman.
2
Regulation?
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/inside-the-koch-brothers-toxic...
"Together, Charles and David Koch control one of the world's largest fortunes, which they are using to buy up our political system. But what they don't want you to know is how they made all that money"
There's a lot of clever work being done to persuade people who should know better that the mechanics of heat-trapping greenhouse gases aren't important, that the people and environments being sickened and killed in the neighborhood of extreme fossil work don't exist, that building infrastructure will not put the thumb on the scale against clean energy, that leaks are not important, that too much water isn't used and polluted all this, that bitumen is nice shiny stuff, and on and on.
You should know better.
Yes, that's a pretty photo, and no doubt when new the pipeline will for most of its length be safe for a while. And yes, trains are lousy too (and there's a regulatory nightmare for you, is that an example of how regulation works?).
What we need, yesterday but as soon as possible, is an all out effort to develop, deliver, and store clean energy. Of course big industry doesn't like the idea of local sourcing, as they can't profit from it on a grand scale. So a lot of regulation goes into preventing that.
This is sad, unethical, and tragic.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/inside-the-koch-brothers-toxic...
"Together, Charles and David Koch control one of the world's largest fortunes, which they are using to buy up our political system. But what they don't want you to know is how they made all that money"
There's a lot of clever work being done to persuade people who should know better that the mechanics of heat-trapping greenhouse gases aren't important, that the people and environments being sickened and killed in the neighborhood of extreme fossil work don't exist, that building infrastructure will not put the thumb on the scale against clean energy, that leaks are not important, that too much water isn't used and polluted all this, that bitumen is nice shiny stuff, and on and on.
You should know better.
Yes, that's a pretty photo, and no doubt when new the pipeline will for most of its length be safe for a while. And yes, trains are lousy too (and there's a regulatory nightmare for you, is that an example of how regulation works?).
What we need, yesterday but as soon as possible, is an all out effort to develop, deliver, and store clean energy. Of course big industry doesn't like the idea of local sourcing, as they can't profit from it on a grand scale. So a lot of regulation goes into preventing that.
This is sad, unethical, and tragic.
10
Apparently even intelligent people like Mr Waldman don't get it. Burning the Alberta Tar sands oil reserves is not compatible with any policy that aims to keep global warming below an average of 2C globally. We cannot base US policy on what other countries choose to do, if we as Americans want to preserve our coastlines and agricultural potential for future generations, we need to enact policies now that compatible with 2C of warming, which includes NOT building the Keystone XL pipeline.
3
As a young native american woman from the Navajo Nation I am deeply saddened by the destruction of my brother's and sister's land. No one speaks of the sacred lands that the Keystone Pipeline would run through, or the effects of another "spill" that it would have on the indigenous people living there.
7
Easy answer to this question, I'm sure, but I'll confess I don't know it, and suspect many others don't either:
Will this pipeline (if it's built) be underground?
I understand there will be places where it probably will come above ground, but my presumption is that it will be underground nearly everywhere.
Can someone answer this?
Will this pipeline (if it's built) be underground?
I understand there will be places where it probably will come above ground, but my presumption is that it will be underground nearly everywhere.
Can someone answer this?
While Waldman makes a valid point it is, nevertheless, a loaded one. With the Republican-controlled congress avoiding any actions on restoring and improving infrastructure, Waldman says nothing about the state of our railroad's rails. And the Illinois derailment of a tanker train transporting oil reported in the same edition of the Times, happening more and more it seems, may conceal the push for pipelines that can be monitored by these brilliant "pigs." Is rail no longer even viable as an option for transport? Not if you're out to please big oil!
3
I adamantly oppose any construction of anything that facilitates efficient movement of oil sands in the United States.
The Canadian Government has trampled its own environmental regulations in servitude to the super wealthy Oil Sands owners and developers to the extent most of the waters of the impact area are permanently harmed.
The Canadian Government has also trashed just about every tribal agreement with the First Nations people and has stripped their ownership of the tribal lands that the oil sands resides.
The sins of humanity toward Mother Earth and the servitude to fossil fuel development will bring some dreadful legacies on the impacts of these projects for decades after the oil is gone.
The project has already caused the extinction of several species of flora and fauna and the Alberta Caribou herd will be totally wiped out by 2020. All this for a 30 years supply of very inefficiently extracted oil.
The Canadian Government has trampled its own environmental regulations in servitude to the super wealthy Oil Sands owners and developers to the extent most of the waters of the impact area are permanently harmed.
The Canadian Government has also trashed just about every tribal agreement with the First Nations people and has stripped their ownership of the tribal lands that the oil sands resides.
The sins of humanity toward Mother Earth and the servitude to fossil fuel development will bring some dreadful legacies on the impacts of these projects for decades after the oil is gone.
The project has already caused the extinction of several species of flora and fauna and the Alberta Caribou herd will be totally wiped out by 2020. All this for a 30 years supply of very inefficiently extracted oil.
10
I must concede I never expected the Times would run an article stating two points that seemed obvious:
1. Canada is going to extract oil out of its tar sands whether or not the Keystone Pipeline is built.
2. Pipelines will leak now and then, but rail cars transporting oil are much more dangerous, and trucks transporting oil are more dangerous still.
1. Canada is going to extract oil out of its tar sands whether or not the Keystone Pipeline is built.
2. Pipelines will leak now and then, but rail cars transporting oil are much more dangerous, and trucks transporting oil are more dangerous still.
Hear, Hear!!!
Start with regulating oil sands production and pollution. Then make pipelines post a clean up bond in case of error and failure--too err is human. The bond to be administered by an impartial board of governors. And to cover the costs of the worst case scenario.
It's not unlike imposing human rights conditions on manufacturing in third world countries. A clean environment is after all a human right.
But these corporations expect the public to pay their clean up costs. That's got to stop. See today's Times on Christie and Exxon pollution.
It's not unlike imposing human rights conditions on manufacturing in third world countries. A clean environment is after all a human right.
But these corporations expect the public to pay their clean up costs. That's got to stop. See today's Times on Christie and Exxon pollution.
4
The problem is that the oil and gas industry is as corrupt as an organized crime syndicate. Sure, the oil and gas industry may not rely on hit men, but their leaders are as corrupt and greedy as any mafia don, and the effects of their crimes are often deadly.
6
I don't think most environmentalists really care about the pipeline itself that much (beyond dumb stuff like routing it through critical aquifers). Its the fact that the XL is proposed to exploit and expand tar sands extraction, which is is about the dirtiest and most environmentally destructive way possible to obtain oil. And, because it required executive approval, it was a way to protest this worst of all possible ways to obtain oil. If I have a criticism, its that the opponents of the XL didn't focus enough on the real problem -- the outsized environmental damage from tar sands extraction -- and not on the pipeline itself. In my view, we need to move away from fossil fuels, starting with the most damaging, but we may actually need more pipelines vs rail fuel transport, in the near term. In a rational political world, these two needs would be grounds for negotiation and compromise.
1
There appears to be little economic benefit from this proposed pipeline except to "big oil." Canada may want it. The pipeline company may want it. The companies at the destination may want it. Perhaps they will benefit from it. As far as I can see no one else does.
5
For those who haven't read it yet, the State Department report on the proposed Keystone pipeline is well written, and interesting. (Clearly it was written by an experienced oil-industry person, not some striped-pants State Department type.) It points out, for example, that the pipeline company voluntarily agreed to dozens (57, if I remember correctly) enhancements that went above and beyond what pipeline-construction regulations require. I understood some of them -- by no means all -- and they struck me as good ideas. By all accounts, pipelines are safer than railroads, which in turn are safer than trucks. The 57 proposed enhancements would make pipelines safer by an even wider margin. If critics have other suggestions, by all means -- now is the time to propose them. But the bottom line remains the same: Canada is going to extract oil from its tar sands, whether it's transported to the US or instead to the east and/or west coasts of Canada. A great deal of it probably will end up in Gulf Coast refineries either way, arriving by ship (the State Department report explains that those refineries' other sources -- Venezuela and Mexico -- appear quite uncertain going forward). We might as well pipe it here directly and save money for people who end up buying the petroleum produced there.
1
The way to get to a clean environment and (nearly) carbon future is not to build more infrastructure.
Change your thinking! No New Infrastructure for the exploitation and destruction of the environment. Aiding and abetting the Canadian destruction of the boreal forests is a sin against humanity and the environment. No tax or regulation can moderate that sin.
Change your thinking! No New Infrastructure for the exploitation and destruction of the environment. Aiding and abetting the Canadian destruction of the boreal forests is a sin against humanity and the environment. No tax or regulation can moderate that sin.
6
Well, I like the idea of better infrastructure and especially more inspections with a low bar for intervening, but I don't believe it would happen that way. Industry is too adept at skipping such things and the political will to enforce them waxes and wanes over time. The problem with this project is not that its dirty oil per se, but that it is a massive pipeline set to run over the Ogallala aquifer where a spill would be a massive disaster. Accidents happen in all industries but seem to happen a lot in oil and gas.
But ignore the dangers for the sake of argument. If shale oil is a bad thing (and I believe it is) and we cannot stop Canada from marketing it, does it automatically follow we should abet them in their endeavors? Notice we get very little positive out of this deal, just some short term construction work. Seems like a poor deal to me. I just hope the next President is someone who will continue to block the thing.
But ignore the dangers for the sake of argument. If shale oil is a bad thing (and I believe it is) and we cannot stop Canada from marketing it, does it automatically follow we should abet them in their endeavors? Notice we get very little positive out of this deal, just some short term construction work. Seems like a poor deal to me. I just hope the next President is someone who will continue to block the thing.
5
Great article.
As a Union Pipefitter of nearly 40 years now I was unaware that the 'Pig' was capable to performing such stringent inspections. I was also unaware, and I do feel better knowing, that Trans-Alaska performs these inspections every few years. I often get my brother members angry when I object to projects such as the Keystone XL. "We need the work," is what I constantly hear and I certainly agree, but not just for Keystone. We have over two and a half million miles of large bore, energy related piping crisscrossing this country and beyond, and a majority of it is more than 50 years old; still in use!
I feel quite secure in knowing that if Union welders and fitters install any piping under the proper guidance of testing and inspection then we're getting the finest product possible under current technology and engineering. The one issue that always concerned me however, dealing with oil pipelines in particular, is the support systems which structurally holds the pipe in place. These supports are all well made but eventually these supports simply have to rely on the earth itself and we all know how that can be a dicey situation given the weather changes year in and year out.
And as I've said several times in this section already, WHY Trans-Canada had to choose the course they've chosen to run this new project strikes me with so much arrogance that I have often felt that they weren't actually serious with this project in the first place.
As a Union Pipefitter of nearly 40 years now I was unaware that the 'Pig' was capable to performing such stringent inspections. I was also unaware, and I do feel better knowing, that Trans-Alaska performs these inspections every few years. I often get my brother members angry when I object to projects such as the Keystone XL. "We need the work," is what I constantly hear and I certainly agree, but not just for Keystone. We have over two and a half million miles of large bore, energy related piping crisscrossing this country and beyond, and a majority of it is more than 50 years old; still in use!
I feel quite secure in knowing that if Union welders and fitters install any piping under the proper guidance of testing and inspection then we're getting the finest product possible under current technology and engineering. The one issue that always concerned me however, dealing with oil pipelines in particular, is the support systems which structurally holds the pipe in place. These supports are all well made but eventually these supports simply have to rely on the earth itself and we all know how that can be a dicey situation given the weather changes year in and year out.
And as I've said several times in this section already, WHY Trans-Canada had to choose the course they've chosen to run this new project strikes me with so much arrogance that I have often felt that they weren't actually serious with this project in the first place.
23
What a thoughtful comment. I agree that (per the photo) parts of this look shiny and OK.
However, another thing people don't take into consideration is global warming. No, that's not quite what you might think I'm getting at ...
As the military notes, climate change is a threat multiplier. The recent events in Boston have pointed out how infrastructure is damaged by extreme events. Of course, roof collapses aren't quite the same thing (and thankfully this is not going over the permafrost with its buckling collapses ("drunken trees"). It's worth noting that with more energy in the system we can expect more extreme and protracted and unusual events.
However, another thing people don't take into consideration is global warming. No, that's not quite what you might think I'm getting at ...
As the military notes, climate change is a threat multiplier. The recent events in Boston have pointed out how infrastructure is damaged by extreme events. Of course, roof collapses aren't quite the same thing (and thankfully this is not going over the permafrost with its buckling collapses ("drunken trees"). It's worth noting that with more energy in the system we can expect more extreme and protracted and unusual events.
4
Unfortunately, the same right-wing politicians who do everything in their power to cripple, degrade, and destroy worker's unions, would be in charge, at least in part, of enforcing regulations and giving the contracts out for construction. Will the pipeline be entirely made using union workers? Doubtful.
5
This is a well written, reasoned and timely commentary. Another oil train derailed in Illinois yesterday. The owners of Keystone need to be held fully accountable for the cost of cleaning up any leakage and remediating any environmental damage. Keystone should be built.
Putting aside the unlikelihood that strict, enforceable regulation and maintenance of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline would ever occur—let's call that a pipe dream—my understanding is that Canadian tar sands oil would cost a lot more if the extractors had to rely on alternative means of transport. Rail would cost more, making this carbon-intensive source of energy uncompetitive. Beating back the Keystone XL pipeline would deliver a serious blow to that industry. Even if it were a 100% safe, which it wouldn't be by far, it's a terrible idea from an environmental safety standpoint. The people living in its path would bear the risk to their lands and health, while all the profits would flow (sludgy and black and toxic) to the oil & gas industry. Bad deal, bad deal.
4
How exactly can any rational person support investment in fossil fuel infrastructure? Throw into the mix the problems with spills and fracking and the it becomes quite bizarre that anyone actually supports Keystone.
4
I think you're missing the point. It's about not using the tar sands oil. It's harmful from the start to the end. It's doing tremendous environmental degradation getting it out of the ground. More importantly, the continued burning of fossil fuels is making our planet uninhabitable. We must force ourselves to use other forms of energy and not waste any.
4
There's no such thing as "safe infrastructure." Hasn't every other oil spill and disaster taught us that?
1
If you advocate for the environment and public safety, I cannot understand how you don't support this pipeline. The alternative is transport by railcars, which unfortunately keep derailing and blowing up, in addition to polluting the environment each time they transport oil.
I disagree. The true alternative is no transport of tar sands within or through the U.S.
There is no safe infrastructure for the XL pipeline. Oil trains aren't the answer either. We need to stop our dependency on oil, period. Alternative energy is the answer and we have to promote it and support it with our dollars and our votes.
8
Isn't the Republican Party against regulation, especially environmental regulation? So it's suggested we could build a pipeline to help "big oil" if we regulate it. What could go wrong there when we can't or won't regulate our banks and finance institutions and maintain our roads and bridges?
4
The problem with regulation by the government is that of timing! Developing federal regulation requires due process where all sides have opportunity for debate, review/comment followed by promulgation. While good and proper. the private sector develops technology and business proposals on a much shorter time frame doing what is expedient without a long, public process. After the Deepwater Horizon debacle and the review of the drilling and production process by the government prior to a restart I was left with a question of how does this protect the public? Industry moves much faster then government with the result being the government officials are never the experts on what they are regulating. Why not just make the companies fully liable for their actions and let them decide what is in their best interest. Instead of a statement that the government has reviewed the proposal, found it safe and therefore authorizes the activity why not a statement that says the assets of the company including the assets of the Board of Directors will be used as collateral for any liabilities resulting from your operations. Be safe or sorry!
I don't automatically object to a new pipeline but I do object to the continual privatization of the profits while socializing the the liabilities of the operations and mistakes/accidents that may come our way. If corporation have the right to speak then they also have the obligation to be responsible for their own actions.
I don't automatically object to a new pipeline but I do object to the continual privatization of the profits while socializing the the liabilities of the operations and mistakes/accidents that may come our way. If corporation have the right to speak then they also have the obligation to be responsible for their own actions.
3
The description of Waldman's upcoming book states: "Rust costs America more than $400 billion per year—more than all other natural disasters combined."
Now, if you understand that, you really should address how you expect to get the company to pay for its share of that costs (clearly a sum much smaller than $400 billion). The Republican party isn't interested in regulations that make the company be a good neighbor, that's "bad business". The company isn't interested in bearing this cost; they would rather take the chance of being sued when a leak occurs and pocketing the profits until then. Even more so, because, when the leak occurs, they will probably be able to settle for much less than the actual cost of the damage that occurs AND go on to blame gubbermint on "not doing its job". Think I'm making this up? Look back at how thing went with the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. It took BP about 10 minutes to come up with the line "government regulators didn't tell us we needed to do that" in spite of years of "we can handle this ourselves" rhetoric.
If you live in any of the states this pipeline wants to go through, its simply not worth it for you. You won't be paid for your trouble and you certainly won't be made whole when the thing breaks. In that event, you'll most likely have to use your own money to get back what you had before.
Now, if you understand that, you really should address how you expect to get the company to pay for its share of that costs (clearly a sum much smaller than $400 billion). The Republican party isn't interested in regulations that make the company be a good neighbor, that's "bad business". The company isn't interested in bearing this cost; they would rather take the chance of being sued when a leak occurs and pocketing the profits until then. Even more so, because, when the leak occurs, they will probably be able to settle for much less than the actual cost of the damage that occurs AND go on to blame gubbermint on "not doing its job". Think I'm making this up? Look back at how thing went with the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. It took BP about 10 minutes to come up with the line "government regulators didn't tell us we needed to do that" in spite of years of "we can handle this ourselves" rhetoric.
If you live in any of the states this pipeline wants to go through, its simply not worth it for you. You won't be paid for your trouble and you certainly won't be made whole when the thing breaks. In that event, you'll most likely have to use your own money to get back what you had before.
3
Isn't it true that Keystone will bring Canadian crude to be refined in USA and then to be exported (probably to Japan)? Thus, it benefits Canada (they avoid dirtying their own environment with refineries) and Japan, but does not make a dent in USA dependence on imported oil for our own needs. And, of course, the final beneficiaries will be international oilr corporations and the Congress via oil companies' PACS.
3
Just how do you propose that the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, or any other agency with a role in this, be "protected from industry influence?" Ask them nicely not to lobby Congress on behalf of weaker regulations or less rigorous enforcement? The entire oil industry, from wellhead to terminal, spends as much time fighting environmental and safety regulations as they do producing oil. Enbridge Energy is currently contesting a proposed requirement that it be required to carry additional liability insurance to cover cleanup costs in the event its Line 61, which runs through Dane County, Wisconsin. home to 500,000 people, should experience a spill. If the oil and pipeline companies were prepared to accept full responsibility for the inevitable accidents and were on board with the highest possible standards for safety and environmental protection we wouldn't need all of the regulations and regulatory agencies. But they're not, and they never will be.
2
"If you build it, it will leak."
If you regulate it, regulators will be bought off. BP flouted scores of existing regulations, none of which prevented the Deep Water Horizon from blowing up and spilling millions of gallons of crude into the Gulf. Rather than advocate (in a rather rambling, incoherent fashion) for continuing our dependence on fossil fuels, why not advocate for a renewable, clean energy infrastructure made stable and reliable by emerging battery technology that charges quicker, holds more energy and holds it longer? One way or another that is the only solution open in the long run. It will be a much better solution if we don't put off working on it until the last minute.
If you regulate it, regulators will be bought off. BP flouted scores of existing regulations, none of which prevented the Deep Water Horizon from blowing up and spilling millions of gallons of crude into the Gulf. Rather than advocate (in a rather rambling, incoherent fashion) for continuing our dependence on fossil fuels, why not advocate for a renewable, clean energy infrastructure made stable and reliable by emerging battery technology that charges quicker, holds more energy and holds it longer? One way or another that is the only solution open in the long run. It will be a much better solution if we don't put off working on it until the last minute.
7
Do we even know whether this type of Canadian crude will erode a pipeline the same way as Alaskan crude? Looks like once again we are told that unless something is proven to be unsafe, it should be allowed in the marketplace. Right out of Alice in Wonderland.
2
You owe it to yourself and others to read the State Department report on the Keystone pipeline. There's been quite a bit of detailed study done on this -- they're not simply shooting from the hip.
This is a good question. I don't know how much of the sand has been removed prior to transport, but residual sand is sure to increase the rate of degradation.
Selling the foul brew from Canada is the most infernal and evil business the oil companies have gotten that country into in over 40 years. It isn't even worth burning, as it costs more to dig, crack and ship than any other form of hydrocarbon, it is actually cheaper and and saves money for the US to leave it in canada and allow the pipeline people to go bankrupt. We now have more of the carboniferous goo than we can even store, anyway! This is now just a political issue in which red state pols gain street cred by being in favor of building a "pipeline to nowhere" carrying a product no one needs, but which the owners are desperate to sell. This is legalisging repackaged "already chewed bubblegum" made into a red v blue political issue. No one needs or wants this filthy tar-it isn't really oil, but we are probably going to get it and it's crummy pipeline, because too many extreme conservatives want to gain pals with deep pockets and all the cash and favors appertaining to being a friend of oil.
4
Excuse me, but you have left out the most obvious caveat. The US has ONLY been faced with the XL project because Canadians so vigorously & successfully opposed it crossing any more of Canadian land. Might be a lesson in that, y'know. No, I don't want our land to be Plan B when the Canadians themselves don't want it.
As for safe infrastructure, let's start with fixing what we already have that we DO need - our own roads, our own city water mains. Here in Syracuse, we've had 100 water main breaks so far in 2015, & our governor has bluntly said, "Fix your own pipes." If building infrastructure = jobs, we have a great jobs proposal already.
As for safe infrastructure, let's start with fixing what we already have that we DO need - our own roads, our own city water mains. Here in Syracuse, we've had 100 water main breaks so far in 2015, & our governor has bluntly said, "Fix your own pipes." If building infrastructure = jobs, we have a great jobs proposal already.
4
The contention that the oil sands will be extracted with or without XL is not a reason to support XL. Though tragic for the local communities the recent oil train fires are "canaries in the coal mine" reminders of where the responsibilities for oil extraction belongs and who should bear the costs. For too long Big Oil have been privatizing the profits while socializing the risks and costs. We should not build infrastructure that will encourage, by lowering the costs, of an activity that is destructive to the environment and keeps us on a path with a finite future. Rather we should use those dollars to prepare us for the future by investing in renewables. If the oil sands or any other oil extraction method becomes necessary in the future, let it be done with the full costs and risks exposed.
4
That robotic pig is a red herring. The regulations require inspection every five years, and Mr. Waldman practically gushes that Alyeska inspects its pipeline "nearly twice as often." What he doesn't raise at all, even with leaks he acknowledges have happened, is remediation, and who pays for it. I *might* be able to be convinced of the safety of moving diluted bitumen through Keystone if the advocates for it were willing to say that the companies that would profit from this pipeline would put forth very serious performance bonds and/or insurance that would fully cover the cost of ANY remediation made necessary by ANY leakage in the pipeline, and that those companies would willingly forego bankruptcy in order to avoid financing any necessary remediation from problems caused by this pipeline. No "act of God" exemptions, either.
As with fracking, the big issue is not really hydrocarbon energy sources. The real issue is the real and present risks to our actually finite supply of potable water, as the Keystone pathway passes over the largest aquifer in the United States, the Ogalalla.
So the idea that the Keystone pipeline presents fewer risks than transport by train, and that transport by train engenders less risk that transport by truck is a complete red herring. The question is, why do the tar sands need to be exploited at all, particularly given the global collapse of oil prices?
As with fracking, the big issue is not really hydrocarbon energy sources. The real issue is the real and present risks to our actually finite supply of potable water, as the Keystone pathway passes over the largest aquifer in the United States, the Ogalalla.
So the idea that the Keystone pipeline presents fewer risks than transport by train, and that transport by train engenders less risk that transport by truck is a complete red herring. The question is, why do the tar sands need to be exploited at all, particularly given the global collapse of oil prices?
5
And given that we need to keep them in the ground to try to prevent the catastrophic warming now in play.
1
Go Canada Go!
On the bigger environmental question, I don't buy into conventional wisdom that makes no sense. There is convincing evidence of warming but not of permanent harm. As the continents have migrated due to plate tectonics, there have been great climate effects and great dislocation comparable to the effects of the ocean level rising. The mass disappearance of species during the Permian extinction led to the evolution of a full range of new species. And common sense tells us that for every location harmed by warming another will benefit. A five degree rise would be welcome in the northern part of the U.S. Obviously, warming will cause drastic short term harm. But those who claim that we are destroying the planet forever don't convince me. BTW, I'm well aware of the terrible effects of short term harm. But folks often make the permanent destruction argument without sufficient evidence.
There is evidence of permanent harm -- check out, for example, the warming in the Arctic, the acidification of the oceans.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/mar/06/dont-look-away-now-th...
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/mar/06/dont-look-away-now-th...
Jonthan, the logic behind your claim, "If you don't build a pipeline, you'll have a lot more leaks" is a bit, er, leaky.
To plug it, we might try something like this: "If you don't build a pipeline, yet continue the frenzied pace of bringing oil to market by cramming it into overweighted 100-car freight trains, you'll have a lot more leaks." All better.
As expected, the more anti-Keystone activism succeeds, the louder the wailing from those who intended to profit from it. No, in fact, the oil won't get to market if tearing up a sizable piece of Albertan forest to get it becomes unprofitable. We're almost there.
To plug it, we might try something like this: "If you don't build a pipeline, yet continue the frenzied pace of bringing oil to market by cramming it into overweighted 100-car freight trains, you'll have a lot more leaks." All better.
As expected, the more anti-Keystone activism succeeds, the louder the wailing from those who intended to profit from it. No, in fact, the oil won't get to market if tearing up a sizable piece of Albertan forest to get it becomes unprofitable. We're almost there.
4
Don't kill the future with dirty fossil fuels. Save it with clean energy sources.
4
Foolishness and just another nod to the oil industry. On an already over-heated planet, facilitating the continued burning of fossil fuel is insane. While sure-to-happen leakage has long been part of the opposition to KXL, it is hardly the only or even most important element.
4
"I’m not pro-pipeline or anti-pipeline; I’m for infrastructure we can maintain."
And whom do you think will be part of the enforcement required in your grand plan, Mr. Waldman? The Environmental Protection Agency? The same EPA that the GOP is determined to continue to underfund out of existence? Brilliant.
And whom do you think will be part of the enforcement required in your grand plan, Mr. Waldman? The Environmental Protection Agency? The same EPA that the GOP is determined to continue to underfund out of existence? Brilliant.
6
And use the pipeline to get a motherlode of other environmental concessions! The planet will be better off all around.
But the Kochs pretty much require a norquistian no new regulations pledge from the growing cadre of public servants that they own. Regulation can be attacked, changed and ignored. Violators will be forced to pay three cents on the dollar for the public damage that they cause.
2
This proposal is far to sensible to be accepted by the radical environmentalists whose goal is to stop all development (and all jobs).
Rather than flirting with extinction isn't making survival a more important priority? We have a steady stream of pollution free, toxicity free Nuclear Energy streaming to the Earth via photons continuously.
The power needs of this Country can be met by the equivalency of 10,000 square miles of solar (photovoltaic) cells. To give perspective that is 100 miles by 100 miles. This is a large number but would be distributed in smaller units across the Country's high solar production regions. For reference the Mojave Desert alone is 25,000 square miles.
Obviously this is a massive solar array project requires a new energy distribution system and innovation in energy storage but one that would revitalize not only our economy but provide our Nation with a source of extremely low cost non polluting power. This is the kind of project that America did in the 30s electrifying the Country with dams and transmission lines.
Per Wikipedia- President Dwight D. Eisenhower, championed the Federal Interstate Highway formation. Construction was authorized by the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956, and the original portion was completed 35 years later. The network has since been extended, and as of 2012, it had a total length of 47,714 miles (76,788 km), making it the world's second longest after China's. The cost of construction has been estimated at $425 billion (in 2006 dollars).
Why is it the last major investment for our Country’s good was in the 60s? Selfish Greed!
The power needs of this Country can be met by the equivalency of 10,000 square miles of solar (photovoltaic) cells. To give perspective that is 100 miles by 100 miles. This is a large number but would be distributed in smaller units across the Country's high solar production regions. For reference the Mojave Desert alone is 25,000 square miles.
Obviously this is a massive solar array project requires a new energy distribution system and innovation in energy storage but one that would revitalize not only our economy but provide our Nation with a source of extremely low cost non polluting power. This is the kind of project that America did in the 30s electrifying the Country with dams and transmission lines.
Per Wikipedia- President Dwight D. Eisenhower, championed the Federal Interstate Highway formation. Construction was authorized by the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956, and the original portion was completed 35 years later. The network has since been extended, and as of 2012, it had a total length of 47,714 miles (76,788 km), making it the world's second longest after China's. The cost of construction has been estimated at $425 billion (in 2006 dollars).
Why is it the last major investment for our Country’s good was in the 60s? Selfish Greed!
2
Unfortunately, the highway system replaced an excellent functional rail system. A piece of that is now being pushed at as a corridor from Canada to Portland Maine for pipelines and - you guessed it - fossil transport.
The Mojave story is another case in point. It gets complicated, because activists in favor of protecting native species are being exploited by big fossil to tie up such a project in litigation for years, making it impracticable. The Mojave is a big place, and while some of it is amazing, much of it is scrub and your suggestion is a good one.
The Mojave story is another case in point. It gets complicated, because activists in favor of protecting native species are being exploited by big fossil to tie up such a project in litigation for years, making it impracticable. The Mojave is a big place, and while some of it is amazing, much of it is scrub and your suggestion is a good one.
1
This essay is rubbish. Strict Regulation is a fence to simply overcome. The banks used to be strictly regulated, until Republicans gutted the laws to open the road to the S&L disaster, and then to 2008. We do not trust Big Oil. We do not want your dirty oil in our rivers and our orchards. A pipeline through the wilderness of Alaska cannot be used as an example; the proposed route is not through wilderness. The earth's crust is not stable, our land is not empty. People live here and they use the land, and are capable of accidentally breaking a pipe line. AND we do not believe the newly minted lies about the oil being for our use or our jobs. It will go to countries where petrol is $12 a gallon. Do you really think we are all fools?
6
The problem is not only the pipeline, which inevitably will leak and will create no more than about 50 permanent jobs. The problem is what it will contain. Science has pointed out that if we burn those tar sands we will irrevocably tip the planet to its end, to mass extinction. I don't care how much money is to be made by the building, regulating of a pipeline and the mining and selling of tar sands oil. The oil barons should have absolutely no say over our planet's life. Are we and all of life to sacrifice ourselves, our future, our children's future, the future of all species to not just the almighty dollar, but the almighty dollar in the pockets of the .01%?
6
The opposition to Keystone XL only partly rests in the environmental threat to our precious natural wild and plant life resources including our fresh water lakes, rivers, streams, aquifers, swamps, deltas and other wetlands.
America does not need the filthy Canadian tar-sands oil. America does not need the tiny number of permanent jobs that will be created by Keystone XL. America does not need any more CO 2 or methane or carbon fossil fuel volatiles released into the planet's atmosphere.
Human hubris regarding scientific technological prowess did not save Titanic, Exxon Valdez, Challenger, Columbia or Deepwater Horizon. Nor has it done much regarding entirely eliminating the threats posed by climate change, infectious or chronic human diseases nor environmental pollution.
America does not need the filthy Canadian tar-sands oil. America does not need the tiny number of permanent jobs that will be created by Keystone XL. America does not need any more CO 2 or methane or carbon fossil fuel volatiles released into the planet's atmosphere.
Human hubris regarding scientific technological prowess did not save Titanic, Exxon Valdez, Challenger, Columbia or Deepwater Horizon. Nor has it done much regarding entirely eliminating the threats posed by climate change, infectious or chronic human diseases nor environmental pollution.
6
Getting the oil from point A to point B is not the most important issue, burning this oil for decades is.
3
This is a horrible idea. Here's why: It took burning 565 billion tons of carbon to raise the mean planetary temerature to almost 1 degree C. Scientists tell us we dare not raise the temperature beyond 2 degrees C or we will face calamity. Right now we have 5 times that much carbon in inventory to burn. If we burn that, it will raise the planetary temperature to around 10 degrees which will be disastorous for human survival. Thekeystone tar sands oil is above and beyond what is included in inventory. We need to leave carbon in the ground or humans won't be around.
10
2015/01/21/ OIL SPILL FOULS WYOMING WATERS
gallons of oil has poured into northern Wyoming waterways in what officials today called one of the country's largest inland spills. A break occurred late Sunday or early Monday in a 12-inch line of the Platte Pipe.
Interesting information largely ignored, and underreported:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/21/us/traces-of-montana-oil-spill-are-fou...
gallons of oil has poured into northern Wyoming waterways in what officials today called one of the country's largest inland spills. A break occurred late Sunday or early Monday in a 12-inch line of the Platte Pipe.
Interesting information largely ignored, and underreported:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/21/us/traces-of-montana-oil-spill-are-fou...
6
In all the arguments I've heard FOR the pipeline I've never heard anyone say what the ongoing financial benefit would be for our country. Besides the couple of thousand temporary jobs and the fifty or so permanent jobs what will the US gain financially? Is there an estimated revenue coming into our system every year? It's not our oil to begin with and the way I understand it once it gets refined in Texas it will be exported. Can someone "Show Me The Money?"
2
The argument "the energy is going to come out either way" isn't entirely true, especially in the tar sands. The tar sands are the most expensive and the most carbon-producing method of extracting oil. Tar sands produce at least 300% more CO2/barrel than traditional oil during the extraction process.
Stopping the Keystone pipeline will make running the tar sands less profitable, discouraging further investment and reducing their use. That's why the oil industry is pushing so hard for it.
Yes, a certain amount of oil is inevitably going to hit market - but preventing the keystone line could ensure it comes from other sources, such as shale gas or traditional drilling that produce much less CO2 per barrel. The only way I could see approving the keystone bill is taxing tar sands producers an almost equal amount of their savings and investing that in cleaner energy development.
Stopping the Keystone pipeline will make running the tar sands less profitable, discouraging further investment and reducing their use. That's why the oil industry is pushing so hard for it.
Yes, a certain amount of oil is inevitably going to hit market - but preventing the keystone line could ensure it comes from other sources, such as shale gas or traditional drilling that produce much less CO2 per barrel. The only way I could see approving the keystone bill is taxing tar sands producers an almost equal amount of their savings and investing that in cleaner energy development.
4
Leave the oil in the ground.
6
While I agree with reducing oil consumption, I see this as a non-starter: Congress & Senate has had too many decades of lobbyists' money supporting their favored government representatives. Can't turn around this ship. However, insisting upon rather punitive, pre-emptory "Escrow Account" from which to draw from when the spills occur would be a remarkable "evening" of the field of battle between consumers/landowners and Oil Companies, Inc. Escrow Account, instead of, "Oh, well, guess you'll sue us and our legal department will get to crush you like the little bugs/consumers/landowners you are, with our well-funded costs-of-doing-business-legal-division, stretching-out legal judgements for decades." (see EXXON Valdeez & Alaska oil spill).
1
Regulate and tax!
Apply taxes to develop and distribute solar panels to every roof.
Apply taxes to develop and distribute solar panels to every roof.
4
Just look at that picture - look at how out of place that ugly pipeline looks in an otherwise pristine natural area. There are so many reasons there has got to be another way.
3
As long as people use oil, people will need oil - and lots of it. If opponents stop personal driving and eliminate the consumption of products that require some base in petroleum products, then their argument wins. The pipeline becomes a dangerous, unwarranted-by-any-measure intrusion on the environment. We know, however, that reality is different. Build the hose and contain it within robust sidewalls of regulatory measures and technologies to keep the thing from leaking or breaking until the day arrives when we don't need the stuff it carries anymore.
Your solution to the Keystone mess about the answer being appropriate regulation is so obvious and so full of common sense. Unfortunately, given the hatred, yes I say hatred, for Obama by the far-right who have also hoodwinked Republican moderates by their rhetoric with their only solution to the country's problems is to vote NO for whatever Obama has put forth or even what other Republicans have put forth based on common sense, the Keystone thing has become totally politicized. In this regard, Obama bears blame too re Keystone (and immigration) by laying down a gauntlet and pandering to the far left. It seems to me that we citizens who care about the country, whether Republican, Democrat or Independent, should bring a class action law suit for wages, benefits and perks received the past 10 years against any member of Congress who forced a government shut down and who did nothing but dig in their heels, pontificate and bring useless legislation to the floor a la 50+ times voting to overturn the ACA, tagging on riders that have nothing to do with the original bill just so to cause a bill's defeat, etc. etc. etc. etc. Better yet, given the horrible performance by Congress during the past 10 years, perhaps they should be tried for treason.
1
http://www.adn.com/article/20100528/trans-alaska-pipeline-spill-toll-500...
"This week's oil spill from the trans-Alaska pipeline totaled about 5,000 barrels, making it the third-largest spill ever from the 800-mile pipeline.
...
The size of this week's spill from the pipeline is topped only by two other accidents on the pipeline:
• In 1978, sabotage at Steele Creek caused about 670,000 gallons - 16,000 barrels - to leak.
• In 2001, a Livengood man shot the pipeline with a high-caliber rifle, causing 258,000 gallons - 6,143 barrels - to spew from the line before Alyeska could secure a clamp over the hole."
It appears that there are other causes for spills besides corrosion.
"This week's oil spill from the trans-Alaska pipeline totaled about 5,000 barrels, making it the third-largest spill ever from the 800-mile pipeline.
...
The size of this week's spill from the pipeline is topped only by two other accidents on the pipeline:
• In 1978, sabotage at Steele Creek caused about 670,000 gallons - 16,000 barrels - to leak.
• In 2001, a Livengood man shot the pipeline with a high-caliber rifle, causing 258,000 gallons - 6,143 barrels - to spew from the line before Alyeska could secure a clamp over the hole."
It appears that there are other causes for spills besides corrosion.
2
During WWII the federal government built the big inch and little inch pipeline which still to this day provides natural gas for NYC. This pipeline literally ran through my back yard while I was growing up in IN. This is an energy hungry world. Just yesterday a train loaded with crude oil from the ND Bakken field derailed right next to the MS River in NW IL.
The Canadian tar sand oil will be harvested and used by the world. There are now completed plans to build a pipeline to the west coast of Canada for our Chinese friends who are scouring the world for energy.
The knee jerk reaction of conservationists is understandable but how our pols are pandering to them is a good lesson on how our nation is driven by our pols who will rarely try to go against the sentiment of the moment.
Ethanol is a beautiful example. No one with knowledge of the true cost of growing corn, producing ethanol and transporting it in rail cars supports this really stupid law. We have the huge crop corporate farmers, the agri business giants such as Con-Agra and the one I really love is POET. A corn farmer in MN who got into ethanol production in a big way and is now a millionaire.
Frankly it will matter little if XL is built or not but seeing the various factions fighting it out is very interesting to watch.
The Canadian tar sand oil will be harvested and used by the world. There are now completed plans to build a pipeline to the west coast of Canada for our Chinese friends who are scouring the world for energy.
The knee jerk reaction of conservationists is understandable but how our pols are pandering to them is a good lesson on how our nation is driven by our pols who will rarely try to go against the sentiment of the moment.
Ethanol is a beautiful example. No one with knowledge of the true cost of growing corn, producing ethanol and transporting it in rail cars supports this really stupid law. We have the huge crop corporate farmers, the agri business giants such as Con-Agra and the one I really love is POET. A corn farmer in MN who got into ethanol production in a big way and is now a millionaire.
Frankly it will matter little if XL is built or not but seeing the various factions fighting it out is very interesting to watch.
If Obama is serious about global warming, he should approve Keystone with the controls you suggest, but also demand that Congress pass sufficient tax credits for renewables and energy efficiency that would offset the carbon emissions the tar sands would likely produce.
In New Jersey, our Governor Christie made a very favorable deal to require ony minimal payments from Exxon for many years of leaks, poor environmental safeguards, and accidents of all types. Who in their right mind would expect XL to adhere to laws in several States when here in NJ, the Governor does not insist on adherence to one State law? If they are going to do XL, the plans to build it must be very stringent at the beginning, and I imagine even that will not be systematically enforced. And let us not forget the habitat destruction too.
3
Another part of the puzzle that no one seems to mention is assuring a revenue stream from the pipeline that appears to otherwise have few long term benefits for this country. Linking a strong and predictable revenue stream to fund clean energy projects or at least the Highway Trust Fund would really be a win for everyone. This is too obvious, but then again there appears to be no sign of intelligent life in Washington.
1
I must tell you I think the Republicans are short sighted. Obama wanted a infrastructure bill for highways and other things. If they tied the Keystone Pipeline to a larger bill that the President wanted, I doubt he would have vetoed it. But they could not get even a highway bill together. Pipelines are much safer than transporting the oil by train. That is what they are doing now. So if you want Keystone the way to get it is to COMPROMISE on other infrastructure issues. Keystone is not much of jobs bill. But the highways one is.
1
Absolutely! The carbon is coming out of the ground - you can hardly expect anyone to sit on that valuable resource, and once it is retrieved it will be burned, and once it is burned ANYWHERE it will effect GLOBAL CO2 levels. So, we might as well share in the profits and become directly involved in the regulating the retrieval, transport, refining, and consumption.
The tar sand oil is unsafe by pipeline or any other means. Just as we a phasing out coal, so must we avoid this other heavy polluter. Regulating a pipeline for the light Bakken oil would be sensible, but Keystone XL does not make any sense at all.
3
Transportation of oil by rail and truck is passe. Trucks can not carry the quantity, rail has proven unsafe. Note the recent train accidents involving oil transport. Oil is needed not only for energy but is converted to chemicals with diverse uses. It will be mined for a long time to come. Pipelines are the safest and cheapest way to move the product, but it must be done in the safest way possible. Mandating state of the art safety measures for any pipeline is absolutely necessary along with extraordinary penalties for failure. These measures should apply not only to the X pipeline but also to the multitudes of pipelines which now crisscross the US.
Mr. Waldman is missing the big picture. More dirty oil = more emissions, more climate disruption.
The best solution: leave it in the ground where it belongs and begin a war-time energy efficiency campaign. Cut your energy use in half and we won't need the Alberta tar sands. It can be done.
The best solution: leave it in the ground where it belongs and begin a war-time energy efficiency campaign. Cut your energy use in half and we won't need the Alberta tar sands. It can be done.
5
The bottom line is we must stop using fossil fuels totally, and quickly - not regulate them - if we wish to avoid the most catastrophic effects of global warming. This is the undisputed scientific consensus. The tar sands oils is among the dirtiest on the planet. That is also undisputed. We have to stop kidding ourselves and make the hard choices and bear the costs to move now to renewables.
6
I'm all for making sure this pipeline is maintained safely and the risks of spills is mitigated. Frankly, a pipeline is much safer than tanker trucks and rail cars, as we consistently see. But the arguments that stopping this pipeline will reduce fossil fuel use is ridiculous. If we don't get the oil to refineries through Keystone, it will only come from other sources, including the Middle East. While there is much research being done into alternative energy sources, we are decades away from any source of sufficient and sustainable energy sources to take the place of fossil fuels.
13
And those decades will stretch out as we continue to pour funds into projects like this, instead of funding research and development for alternative energies.
1
We are within spitting distance of energy independence so there is no need for oil from Canada or the Middle East. But, on emissions, Canadian oil is much worse than Middle East oil or our own, so we should discourage the use of Canadian oil.
1
Why don't the pipeline pushers offer "... stricter pipeline inspection standards ..." instead of you asking Obama to do it?
That might indicate that they are somewhat more serious than is currently the case.
That might indicate that they are somewhat more serious than is currently the case.
1
Wow, talk about missing the point. The Keystone XL pipeline is part of system for extracting tar sands oil from Alberta, and it's the most carbon intensive oil in the world and must not be fully exploited. Some of this oil is coming out of the ground without KXL, yes, but the quantity matters. Yes there are other things that must be done to fight climate change, but stopping the reckless growth of the tar sand industry is one important step. This has nothing to do with rust.
5
Keystone is about selling oil overseas for the good of the oil companies not for the good of the people of Canada or the United States. The resulting environmental damage will be massive and obvious and the safety problems deal with numerous and perpetual whens, not ifs. Natural forces can't be regulated, especially in an area as laden with corruption and greed as the oil industry. This is "moral hazard" all over again. Let's get it right this time.
According to the author, the only argument against the pipeline is the potential for disaster.
Everything you do, every minute of every hour of every day of every year, involves a risk. Some risks are small. Some risks are large. Some small risks are compounding - every day you don't brush your teeth increases the risk of tooth decay.
If your goal is risk-avoidance, then you have only one option: Go back to living near the equator in a warm comfortable environment - the one humanity first came about in. Of course, that doesn't remove all risks, that simply reduces the total number.
The KXL pipeline can develop leaks - the best thing the government can do is enforce private property laws. Why? Because when a leak occurs, it will affect the private property in a radius from the leak. THAT is, and should be, the ONLY concern of the government with respect to KXL.
Anything else violates private property rights, and therefore violates freedoms. And when your government violates private property and freedom, you're heading for fascism. Or worse.
Everything you do, every minute of every hour of every day of every year, involves a risk. Some risks are small. Some risks are large. Some small risks are compounding - every day you don't brush your teeth increases the risk of tooth decay.
If your goal is risk-avoidance, then you have only one option: Go back to living near the equator in a warm comfortable environment - the one humanity first came about in. Of course, that doesn't remove all risks, that simply reduces the total number.
The KXL pipeline can develop leaks - the best thing the government can do is enforce private property laws. Why? Because when a leak occurs, it will affect the private property in a radius from the leak. THAT is, and should be, the ONLY concern of the government with respect to KXL.
Anything else violates private property rights, and therefore violates freedoms. And when your government violates private property and freedom, you're heading for fascism. Or worse.
I agree with the premise of this article. The only problem is that if the EPA tried to strengthen regulation rules, the Republicans in the House would howl like monkey's and blame the Obama administration for usurping power and taking away our freedoms or some such nonsense.
But yes, tougher regulation and inspections and make the pipeline company put a billion dollars in escrow to cover the coast of the clean up of the eventual environmental disaster. Make it the cost of doing business and then see then if the Koch brothers still want to build this.
But yes, tougher regulation and inspections and make the pipeline company put a billion dollars in escrow to cover the coast of the clean up of the eventual environmental disaster. Make it the cost of doing business and then see then if the Koch brothers still want to build this.
1
Excellent. A common sense approach. Should be mirror image legislation, regulation and administration for both Canada and United States.
Pipeline safety is indeed a key issue. But Canadian tar sands oil remains some of the filthiest, most polluting fossil fuel to recover on the planet. And at the end of the day, it's still polluting to use. Time to invest in renewables and energy efficiency, saving carbon-based fuel for only the greatest-sum-energy needs.
4
Let's reward the Koch brothers for buying Republican political
support to profit from investing in a pipeline we don't need to
benefit the Chinese. That was a firm plank in the Republican's
2014 platform. Of course they cloud it by pious concern about
"jobs for the middle class". The 2016 platform should have a
motto: "Hey, Suckers. Wanna obsolete cynical ideology? Just
let our goons buy your votes. Hurry Hurry Hurry. Step Right Up."
support to profit from investing in a pipeline we don't need to
benefit the Chinese. That was a firm plank in the Republican's
2014 platform. Of course they cloud it by pious concern about
"jobs for the middle class". The 2016 platform should have a
motto: "Hey, Suckers. Wanna obsolete cynical ideology? Just
let our goons buy your votes. Hurry Hurry Hurry. Step Right Up."
2
Who will design the regulations? This could take longer than building the pipeline.
Meanwhile, perhaps, just perhaps if we were to work on the infrastructure in this country, deliver by rail and trucks would not be as dangerous.
Meanwhile, perhaps, just perhaps if we were to work on the infrastructure in this country, deliver by rail and trucks would not be as dangerous.
2
The author doesn't mention whether or not there have been any major leaks. TransCanada is, as its name implies, a Canadian company, that has an atrocious record of hundreds of pipeline leaks. Keystone XL, therefore, presents a much more difficult regulatory and environmental problem. First, it would take an international agreement that the conservative government in Ottawa probably would not agree to. Second, tar sands oil, is the world's most toxic, polluting, and, with regard to pipeline leaks, impossible to cleanup. That's why Canada's own province of British Columbia voted not to allow the pipeline to run through it to a Pacific terminal. Since Keystone XL runs over the Ogallala aquifer that supplies water to America's bread basket it poses an environmental risk of major proportions. These reasons make the risk too high in my opinion, especially when this oil, despite all the claims, is not needed in a world now awash in cheap oil due to U.S. fracking.
2
The myopic sensibility of the authors fails to mention the catastrophic environmental damage caused by extracting tar sands. Glossing over the environmental ramifications of tar sands extraction and burning bituminous shale is an ill conceived comprehension of the problem. Furthermore, bituminous shale is far more corrosive than conventional oil, which guarantees leakage unless those pipeline checks are performed on a far more regular schedule. Overall, there is no mitigating the potential for tragedy with this pipeline and Obama was correct in safeguarding the immediate environment, climate, and the lives and health of people who reside in the immediate vicinity of the pipeline's path.
1
Pipelines are like the electric grid. They promote technologies of the past that delay the future of energy.
2
Oil extraction and processing is inherently messy. And while alternative energy sources (happily) are evolving, we still need oil. My country Canada is your largest trading partner and your reliable ally. Since we are going to keep needing oil, we (Canada and the US) need a North-South pipeline AND preferably an East-West pipeline (a) to get rid of the oil trains, and (b) to protect our self-sufficiency. Would you rather like to rely on Venezuela? Do you really think Nigerian oil is "cleaner" with the carbon it takes to get it to the US? Would you rather stay dependant on the Middle East? Would you rather keep drilling holes in the Gulf of Mexico that blow up once in a while? The XL pipeline is a good idea: it just needs to be done properly. .
2
Let Canada deal with piping this dirty oil since it comes from Canada, creates no jobs, and risks our water, takes private land and is not needed.
2
Republicans hate regulation. If Obama approved it, I can guarantee you that with this Congress there would be NO regulation.
It would be better to build a water pipeline to the west from somewhere that is too wet now. The west needs water more than the rest of us need oil. A water pipeline would make everyone happy--the climate change deniers could make money off of it and the parched lands of the west could sustain the agriculture to grow the crops the rest of the country expects from the west.
The minimal number of jobs that building it would create would enable the GOP to crow about how Republicans are job creators, too. It would be a win-win situation.
It would be better to build a water pipeline to the west from somewhere that is too wet now. The west needs water more than the rest of us need oil. A water pipeline would make everyone happy--the climate change deniers could make money off of it and the parched lands of the west could sustain the agriculture to grow the crops the rest of the country expects from the west.
The minimal number of jobs that building it would create would enable the GOP to crow about how Republicans are job creators, too. It would be a win-win situation.
3
This Keystone Pipeline is a political football for sure, and, as we were all accused in New England, it has been supposedly deflated; but probably not.. I applaud President Obama for having the courage to "just say no".to the bought and paid for congress. And we should make sure NO means No - not "well maybe", or " we can regulate it." as they say -- " we can't fool Mother Nature" . The social costs are just too high and my grandkids' kids will have to pay for this mistake if we allow it to be built.
1
Regulate it, already done. I say tax it. Tax fracking to. Allow fracking in Western NY State. Tax the gas. Run a gas pipeline down to the City and ban heating oil. Massive improvement in the City's carbon footprint. Use the tax proceeds to build nuclear, solar and wind. In 20 years we can then wean off the gas by increasing the tax.
Letting carbon fuel pay for the transistion makes the most sense. Or, we can keep stamping our feet and do nothing as we are now.
Letting carbon fuel pay for the transistion makes the most sense. Or, we can keep stamping our feet and do nothing as we are now.
1
Regulate it? Like we regulated BP in the gulf? Like we regulated Exxon Valdez type shipping?
Like they don't fight regulation? Like they don't say global warming is a hoax?
Like the general public is supposed to bone up on the regulations and create another bureau of oversight -- with the appointees either favorable or being blocked by congress??
Love it!
Like they don't fight regulation? Like they don't say global warming is a hoax?
Like the general public is supposed to bone up on the regulations and create another bureau of oversight -- with the appointees either favorable or being blocked by congress??
Love it!
3
How about 2 billion dollars in escrow to cover the risk of spills?
How about a 50 to 1 pay scale difference between the ceo and the lowest paid workers (cover stock sharing, bene's and retirement too)?
How about an annual donation of 250 to each state the pipeline touches?
How about a 50 to 1 pay scale difference between the ceo and the lowest paid workers (cover stock sharing, bene's and retirement too)?
How about an annual donation of 250 to each state the pipeline touches?
1
>
The problem with Keystone is NOT water and soil environmental safety (i.e., spills) or regulations. The problem is CO2 loading into the atmosphere, which increases and becomes more efficient the safer the Keystone becomes. The cheaper that oil becomes, the harder it is to expand cleaner and better alternative energy sources, thereby, limiting or retarding CO2 reductions.
There is such a thing as peak oil, but it is substantially far off into the future, probably far past the CO2 drop dead point. Hence your problem is similar to that of alcoholics, who do not suffer from too little but, rather, too much access to booze, and it is just this that will kill them one day.
Prometheus in Greek means to know before. Hence, I knew better than to have children, but the burden of clairvoyance is that there are no surprises. So I do not really have a dog in the fight. But it is something you may want to think about.
“To live alone one must be a beast or a god-says Aristotle. There is a third case: one must be both-a philosopher”
Nietzsche
The problem with Keystone is NOT water and soil environmental safety (i.e., spills) or regulations. The problem is CO2 loading into the atmosphere, which increases and becomes more efficient the safer the Keystone becomes. The cheaper that oil becomes, the harder it is to expand cleaner and better alternative energy sources, thereby, limiting or retarding CO2 reductions.
There is such a thing as peak oil, but it is substantially far off into the future, probably far past the CO2 drop dead point. Hence your problem is similar to that of alcoholics, who do not suffer from too little but, rather, too much access to booze, and it is just this that will kill them one day.
Prometheus in Greek means to know before. Hence, I knew better than to have children, but the burden of clairvoyance is that there are no surprises. So I do not really have a dog in the fight. But it is something you may want to think about.
“To live alone one must be a beast or a god-says Aristotle. There is a third case: one must be both-a philosopher”
Nietzsche
1
Keystone XL has backfired on environmentalist who opposed it. It has become a symbol. Not just a symbol for the opposition, but a symbol for those who oppose government blocking of private enterprise.
The president is now stuck having to defend a policy if only not to lose face. And the GOP have an issue to use in order to show how the president and his party are controlled by a special interest.
This is far past the point where its about the environment. Now its about using this symbol to achieve political goals.
The president is now stuck having to defend a policy if only not to lose face. And the GOP have an issue to use in order to show how the president and his party are controlled by a special interest.
This is far past the point where its about the environment. Now its about using this symbol to achieve political goals.
1
No deal sir. No more support of fossil fuels - none. There is no bigger issue. Renewables only, here forward.
4
Boiled down, Mr. Waldman' argument is as follows: "This is an 'energy-thirsty world, so this [filthy] oil will be extracted no matter what. From this it follows that all we need to do, so we can be in on this particular oil and, you know, feel all happy and good about it, is build a good, strong pipeline, with federal regulations in effect, just like we have in Alaska."
Human hubris really knows no bounds, does it? Mr. Waldman doesn't even mention that sooner or later we will reach peak oil, and that climate change is a reality. Obama's veto of the Keystone pipeline offers a small bit of hope that the oil and gas industry doesn't have to control this discussion.
Although no one is privy to the corporate contracts already in play for this Canadian oil, everyone--Democrats and Republicans alike--concede that at least some of it will go to and other foreign places.
Our land, our ecological risk, our disrupted landscape, our private farmers losing their land to the power of eminent domain, and a few thousand temporary jobs-- for what, again? For our "energy-thirsty" world that won't face reality? For being able to drive our SUV's a couple of years longer? For China?
No thanks.
Human hubris really knows no bounds, does it? Mr. Waldman doesn't even mention that sooner or later we will reach peak oil, and that climate change is a reality. Obama's veto of the Keystone pipeline offers a small bit of hope that the oil and gas industry doesn't have to control this discussion.
Although no one is privy to the corporate contracts already in play for this Canadian oil, everyone--Democrats and Republicans alike--concede that at least some of it will go to and other foreign places.
Our land, our ecological risk, our disrupted landscape, our private farmers losing their land to the power of eminent domain, and a few thousand temporary jobs-- for what, again? For our "energy-thirsty" world that won't face reality? For being able to drive our SUV's a couple of years longer? For China?
No thanks.
6
Emile - beautifully stated.
Chasing 21st century problems (pollution, limited resources, climate change) with 19th century solutions.
Chasing 21st century problems (pollution, limited resources, climate change) with 19th century solutions.
1
Or perhaps Congress could address highways, bridges, rails, airports, ports AND pipelines by passing a comprehensive infrastructure bill. This would create jobs, boost the economy and support businesses across all industries. That sounds better than promoting a single pet project of the oil and gas industry with limited long-term benefit for the US.
2
Any form of higher regulation is going to be fought by the petrochemical lobby, and, in some form or fashion, will likely win that fight with millions and millions of dollars and an army of lawyers. No pipeline? No fight.
Instead of building more oil infrastructure, we should start figuring out how we're going to safely deconstruct the trillions of dollars already there. Everything from the hundreds of millions of internal combustion engines to the gas stations to the pipelines to the refineries to the oil fields... All of this stuff is contaminated with harmful chemicals, particularly heavy metals. The oil companies are going to fight tooth and nail to suck every last penny out of it. Then, when they have, they'll make the world a Superfund site. Instead of letting them build, they should start making them take it apart.
Instead of building more oil infrastructure, we should start figuring out how we're going to safely deconstruct the trillions of dollars already there. Everything from the hundreds of millions of internal combustion engines to the gas stations to the pipelines to the refineries to the oil fields... All of this stuff is contaminated with harmful chemicals, particularly heavy metals. The oil companies are going to fight tooth and nail to suck every last penny out of it. Then, when they have, they'll make the world a Superfund site. Instead of letting them build, they should start making them take it apart.
6
Mr. Waldman is naive and needs to do a bit more research about what happens when corporations create environmental disasters. What happens is absolutely nothing. From today's New York Times: "The administration of Gov. Chris Christie offered details for the first time on Thursday about its settlement of a legal battle with Exxon Mobil Corporation over contamination in which the company agreed to pay a fraction of the damages that the State of New Jersey had sought." Until corporate executives are sent to prison, this pattern will continue.
Here's more about why our "system" is broken:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/15/us/15court.html
Here's more about why our "system" is broken:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/15/us/15court.html
5
Mr Waldman the Koch brothers send their love and utmost respect for you. They would love no more than to bring you on board.
2
I'll take the Keystone Pipeline over our current "Bomb Trains" any day.
2
Pipelines leak. No amount of inspection (which I know would be "voluntary") can stop this. I wonder how Mr. Waldman would like his land taken by eminent domain by a foreigh corp for this mess? We don't need it. There is a reason the Canandians don't want it on either of their coasts.
1
The Gravestone XtraLeakage pipeline is a disaster and should not be approved under any circumstances. But in a way it is a sleight-of-hand: There is a more-dangerous pipeline in the works, Enbridge Line 61 aimed at Wisconsin, that will pump even more of this insanely poisonous fuel stock to the US:
https://350madison.wordpress.com/campaigns/tar-sands/
With solar and wind power becoming cheaper by the day, we should be concentrating on improving the grid and energy-storage technologies to permit those clean sources of energy to be used effectively. What we don't need, either through the Gravestone or Line 61 or any other way, is to pour yet more poison into our lungs, water, land and atmosphere.
Stop the Gravestone XtraLeakage--and Line 61. Leave the nasty tar sands oil in the ground, and start taking climate change seriously.
https://350madison.wordpress.com/campaigns/tar-sands/
With solar and wind power becoming cheaper by the day, we should be concentrating on improving the grid and energy-storage technologies to permit those clean sources of energy to be used effectively. What we don't need, either through the Gravestone or Line 61 or any other way, is to pour yet more poison into our lungs, water, land and atmosphere.
Stop the Gravestone XtraLeakage--and Line 61. Leave the nasty tar sands oil in the ground, and start taking climate change seriously.
2
Given the relative safety of pipelines compared to both trains and boats, we should insist a safe, regulated pipeline for the Alberta Tar Sands oil. Moreover, it should be taxed at a rate which makes it barely economically better than trains until and unless Canada agrees to build a pipeline from Alaska across Canada to the US so as to obviate the need to transport Alaskan oil by sea.
Mr. Waldman's argument takes place from a narrow perspective that misses the overall importance of this debate. What is at stake is not the ideology of government regulation or improved infrastructure, but the very survival of the human race. For many years scientists and environmentalists have argued that tar sands extraction likely represents a tipping point for climate change, potentially crossing the line from extensive damage to cataclysmic damage to humanity. Continuing the fatalistic argument that this is going to happen no matter what, is in opposition to both reason and the statements of the companies involved. I suspect the reason the argument is taking place at a small minded, detailed level is because the big picture is far scarier and less prone to ideology.
3
The question isn't whether we need oil pipelines, it's whether we need this one, which we don't. Also, plans call for automatic shut off valves every 20 miles, and more frequently in sensitive areas like river crossings. While the company boasts that's more than other pipelines have, it doesn't seem like enough to me. There would be an awful lot of oil to spill out of 20 miles of pipe after a rupture.
I have a home outside Bozeman, MT that can be reached only by crossing nearby tracks that carry many oil-laden trains, so I appreciate the merits of pipe over trains and trucks. But we shouldn't allow the industry to lay pipe in sensitive areas without stronger safety measures like more cutoff valves, more frequent monitoring and more public disclosure of the inspection results. If the industry is unhappy about opposition, it has itself to blame after decades of opposing stronger regulation.
I have a home outside Bozeman, MT that can be reached only by crossing nearby tracks that carry many oil-laden trains, so I appreciate the merits of pipe over trains and trucks. But we shouldn't allow the industry to lay pipe in sensitive areas without stronger safety measures like more cutoff valves, more frequent monitoring and more public disclosure of the inspection results. If the industry is unhappy about opposition, it has itself to blame after decades of opposing stronger regulation.
26
Regulation only works if the government has the will to follow through with enforcement, but too often it does not. Regulation should have easily stopped the Exxon Valdez from hitting Bligh Reef, but it failed, as did the regulation covering clean up and clean up responsibility. Regulation should have stopped the disaster in the Gulf but it did not. In both cases the law was clear, but political pressure, and funding cuts leave too many regulatory bodies hamstrung and ineffective.
It is not the laws and rules that have failed, but the agencies, and they have failed because too many legislators and congressmen and governors and judges are beholden to the "industry" what ever that industry might be. Looks at the gift Chris Christie gave Exxon just last week and tell me that regulation works at any level. They call them "stakeholders" these days, but I still call them special interests, and until their influence on the government is controlled, the government will not be able to do its job for the people.
It is not the laws and rules that have failed, but the agencies, and they have failed because too many legislators and congressmen and governors and judges are beholden to the "industry" what ever that industry might be. Looks at the gift Chris Christie gave Exxon just last week and tell me that regulation works at any level. They call them "stakeholders" these days, but I still call them special interests, and until their influence on the government is controlled, the government will not be able to do its job for the people.
59
Despite claiming to be neutral regarding KXL construction Jonathan Waldman makes several arguments in favor and none against.
He argues that the tar sands will be exploited anyway, so we might as well facilitate it. This is a dubious assertion. With enough public outrage focused on the devastation and pollution of thousands of square miles of boreal forest, environmental advocates may persuade the Canadian government to forgo revenue in favor of habitat preservation.
He argues that pipelines are safer carriers of toxins than are trains and trucks. This is true but it ignores the harm done by seizing private property and building the pipeline through forest and farms and over fresh water resources including major rivers and the Ogalala aquifer. The routing of the pipeline will create risk of releases where none had existed before.
He skirts entirely the objections that high carbon bitumen will pollute the air where it is burned and has the potential of contributing more CO2 to the atmosphere than all the rest of the earth's petroleum reserves combined.
Mining, transporting, and burniing bitumen harm the planet at every step. Anyone concerned with future generations and the kind of world we will leave them should resist short term profit motivated arguments from fossil fuel industry spokespeople and the ironically anti-conservation "conservatives".
He argues that the tar sands will be exploited anyway, so we might as well facilitate it. This is a dubious assertion. With enough public outrage focused on the devastation and pollution of thousands of square miles of boreal forest, environmental advocates may persuade the Canadian government to forgo revenue in favor of habitat preservation.
He argues that pipelines are safer carriers of toxins than are trains and trucks. This is true but it ignores the harm done by seizing private property and building the pipeline through forest and farms and over fresh water resources including major rivers and the Ogalala aquifer. The routing of the pipeline will create risk of releases where none had existed before.
He skirts entirely the objections that high carbon bitumen will pollute the air where it is burned and has the potential of contributing more CO2 to the atmosphere than all the rest of the earth's petroleum reserves combined.
Mining, transporting, and burniing bitumen harm the planet at every step. Anyone concerned with future generations and the kind of world we will leave them should resist short term profit motivated arguments from fossil fuel industry spokespeople and the ironically anti-conservation "conservatives".
87
There is a major problem with allowing the pipeline if proper regulations are in place--companies often ignore the regulations.
A natural gas pipeline in San Mateo, CA leaked and caused an explosion that killed 8 people, injured many others and destroyed many beautiful homes. PG&E, the owner of the pipeline, had ignored rules to inspect the pipeline, including its out of date welds. Had the pipeline been inspected and repaired per requirements, the explosion could have been averted.
To add insult to injury, PG&E paid only a small amount to individuals harmed and now wants to charge its users for the repair and mandated inspections.
Just because the law states that inspections and repairs are required does not mean that the company will adhere to the law. Too many companies follow the attitude of many dog owners who do not abide by leash laws--laws were meant to be broken.
A natural gas pipeline in San Mateo, CA leaked and caused an explosion that killed 8 people, injured many others and destroyed many beautiful homes. PG&E, the owner of the pipeline, had ignored rules to inspect the pipeline, including its out of date welds. Had the pipeline been inspected and repaired per requirements, the explosion could have been averted.
To add insult to injury, PG&E paid only a small amount to individuals harmed and now wants to charge its users for the repair and mandated inspections.
Just because the law states that inspections and repairs are required does not mean that the company will adhere to the law. Too many companies follow the attitude of many dog owners who do not abide by leash laws--laws were meant to be broken.
4
I hope you rode your bike to work today and never have flown on an airplane.
ChrisS, Beautiful city you've got there in Vancouver. It'd be a shame if anything bad happened to it.
Like maybe the bitumen slurry could be routed to Vancouver for processing and loading onto tankers. BC could then have some of the advantages of Bayonne and Bayway. Ever been up the NJ Turnpike past the refineries? You can see some of the scenery in the beginning of each Soprano's episode. If James Gandolfini were still alive, he'd be perfect to play Chris Christie in a film about corporate/government natural resource restoration.
Like maybe the bitumen slurry could be routed to Vancouver for processing and loading onto tankers. BC could then have some of the advantages of Bayonne and Bayway. Ever been up the NJ Turnpike past the refineries? You can see some of the scenery in the beginning of each Soprano's episode. If James Gandolfini were still alive, he'd be perfect to play Chris Christie in a film about corporate/government natural resource restoration.
2
Regulation misses the point altogether.
Even the chimerical safe pipeline perpetuates the the lethal lie that a carbon-based energy is survivable. It is not. Deck chairs on the Titanic.
Even the chimerical safe pipeline perpetuates the the lethal lie that a carbon-based energy is survivable. It is not. Deck chairs on the Titanic.
3
"If the oil is going to be consumed one way or another . . " Stop right there. Paragraph 4. Ever hear of the "carbon budget?" Two-thirds of the proven reserves of fossil fuels must stay underground in order to avoid catastrophic climate change. So says the IPCC; so says all of us who love our grandchildren.
4
Technology notwithstanding, it's an unnecessary environmental risk for something that won't create many permanent American jobs, provide fuel for domestic consumption, or reduce our global carbon footprint. Let's use robotic inspectors for pipelines that are both needed and economically feasible and leave the stillborn Keystone boondoggle for the Kochs and their minions to mourn.
3
This pipeline will bring nasty sludge to the gulf area where it will be sent to China. If the Canadians want to sell this gunk let the Canadians send it across Canada to the Pacific and take it the China from there. We are transitioning to renewables and possibly soon to nuclear fusion. This pipeline will create few permanent jobs here (contrary to the constant commercials we hear on TV) and will merely enrich the already obscenely rich Koch Brothers. We don't need it and it will be dangerous to Nebraska in particular. I doubt very much that the Koch's or the fossil fuel business in general is interested in anything but money. They will do it the way that brings them the most money..whatever the environmental costs. We should stop burning fossil fuels asap. The president is right on this.
6
Regulations in the abstract sounds great, but just because it works with Alaska crude oil doesn't mean it will be as easy with tar sands oil. How about cost, you don't expect the oil companies to comply with these regulations unless you and I pay to enforce them. If the pipeline is approved it will be years before it is built and in the meantime we can't seem to regulate the transport of oil by rail or the drilling of oil in the Gulf or the coal industry. The republicans and a lot of democrats in congress hate regulations and we may end up with a republican president who is even friendlier to business interests then Obama, if you can imagine that.
If you are neither pro or con about it, think how much easier it would be to just kill it.
If you are neither pro or con about it, think how much easier it would be to just kill it.
5
If it's that important,let Canada run the pipeline through its own citizens private land,across its own aquifers and through its own national parks to its own ecologically sensitive ports. The pipeline has never been more than a potentially tax-financed boondoggle anyway.
4
The spills of late have primarily been USA crude including the disaster in Quebec.
Pipelines are so 20th century i prefer the 19th century method of trains. That way we can wipe out entire Canadian towns in a night and have major spills weekly in the heart of our big cities. I also prefer all the extra diesel fuel used/wasted to transport oil on a train enstead of a pipeline. Not one drop less oil has not mafe it to the markets.
This has got to be the dumbest policy "enviormentalists" have pushed for since ethanol.
This has got to be the dumbest policy "enviormentalists" have pushed for since ethanol.
2
This would be a sensible article if the only source of concern was the KXL pipeline and its potential for leaks. However, the article includes the glib statement that 'the oil is going to be consumed one way or another'. That is not about the pipeline, is a much bigger issue and is highly objectionable.
It is a defeatist statement to say that our energy 'strategy' will be to gorge ourselves as quickly as possible on the earth's remaining fossil fuels, thereby altering the atmosphere for eons to come, with the result of catastrophic global warming, acidifying the oceans and leaving an unrecognizably scarred and degraded earth behind for future generations. But that's exactly what Jonathan Waldman is proposing will happen.
This is the far bigger problem, and the way to address it is with sensible policy such as carbon fee and dividend, which will start to move us efficiently and fairly away from use of fossil fuels. We have to get started on this, and, contrary to this article's tone, we do have a will in this matter.
It is a defeatist statement to say that our energy 'strategy' will be to gorge ourselves as quickly as possible on the earth's remaining fossil fuels, thereby altering the atmosphere for eons to come, with the result of catastrophic global warming, acidifying the oceans and leaving an unrecognizably scarred and degraded earth behind for future generations. But that's exactly what Jonathan Waldman is proposing will happen.
This is the far bigger problem, and the way to address it is with sensible policy such as carbon fee and dividend, which will start to move us efficiently and fairly away from use of fossil fuels. We have to get started on this, and, contrary to this article's tone, we do have a will in this matter.
3
By all means make all pipelines safer for the environment, but if the aim is to build a pipeline and not just to create political conflict with the President, Congress should include the pipeline in the major infrastructure legislation that the President wants. Bury it in a big pile of roads, bridges, and other infrastructure construction funding, and it should be veto proof.
A practice followed for giant tanks storing crude & other petroleum product is outside periphery of tank there is a pit large enough to accommodate complete liquid if it comes out of tank. This pit is concrete totally checked for seepage. Pipes connecting tanks or transporting liquids within tank farms/ refineries are run in trough or in semicircular outer casing so that spills do not fall out on earth & go in soil. It is costly & profit mongering industries will cry wolf. To counter that any spill should be fined by double amount that they are trying to save by not doing what they are supposed to do as safe practices.Leak detectors can detect any leak & communicate data to main station which can shut that portion of line( O my money my money cries the fat man in board room).
1
Apparently the author has not received the memo on climate change. Science tells us that burning more than 1/3 of known oil reserves will result in disaster for the earth's climate. We need to taper our use of oil, not facilitate the extraction of the dirtiest.
10
"If the oil is going to be consumed one way or another," then the climate is cooked and so will be the frogs (people) in it.
So, reject the premise. Then the author's argument fails.
But this to-and-fro is taking place, fundamentally, not at the level of arguments but between concepts of self. Another person—wherever, whenever—has as much right to the bounty of nature as I do is one concept of self. But not the concept of those who would not leave a large fraction of the remaining fossil fuels in the ground.
So, reject the premise. Then the author's argument fails.
But this to-and-fro is taking place, fundamentally, not at the level of arguments but between concepts of self. Another person—wherever, whenever—has as much right to the bounty of nature as I do is one concept of self. But not the concept of those who would not leave a large fraction of the remaining fossil fuels in the ground.
2
The last time there was reliable regulation of such things was during the George H.W. Bush administration. Since, the key laws have not been updated, agency enforcement personnel levels have been slashed, and the regulators have become timid due to fear of backlash. And that's at the federal level. As for the states that Keystone XL would traverse, they're unlikely to pick up the ball. The TAP has been protected by a degree of care that is unusual, fortunately.
And yet -- the country's existing network of pipelines is aging and becoming more prone to failure, yet is used to move large amounts of oil and its products. Out of sight, out of mind. Updating and making the existing network safer would be a very useful infrastructure project, and without many of the side-issues attached to Keystone XL.
And yet -- the country's existing network of pipelines is aging and becoming more prone to failure, yet is used to move large amounts of oil and its products. Out of sight, out of mind. Updating and making the existing network safer would be a very useful infrastructure project, and without many of the side-issues attached to Keystone XL.
20
Regulating the Keystone XL Pipeline isn't a solution to having a pipeline run from the tar sands of Canada down through the western United States ending in the oil refineries of Louisiana owned by the Koch Brothers and their partners in oil. Pipelines are as vulnerable as rolling stock.
Transporting tar sands and oil by rail has proven catastrophic in several small towns on the US side of the border where the oil train explodes on the rails to the loss of human life and oil pollution. Given the rickety state of infrastructure in the US today, there is no reason for a Keystone XL pipeline to be built from the far north (Alberta) to our far south (the Gulf of Mexico - which has already taken a dire hit from a foreign oil company - British Petroleum - which let loose tons of raw oil killing all sea life, livelihoods of fishermen from the entire Gulf Coast with their explosion and oil rig spill, effects of which - a dead zone - are still in evidence in the Gulf. Nothing wrong with President Obama's prudence in forestalling a pipeline disaster by vetoing the Keystone XL plan. Why should a trans-american pipeline (originating in Alberta, CA) bring tar sands down into the laps of the Koch Brothers who own Louisiana refineries and are just waiting to add to their great heap of gold which they can lavish on Repbublican conservative POTUS wannabes, thanks to Citizens United? Keystone is a major infrastructure calamity waiting to happen.
Transporting tar sands and oil by rail has proven catastrophic in several small towns on the US side of the border where the oil train explodes on the rails to the loss of human life and oil pollution. Given the rickety state of infrastructure in the US today, there is no reason for a Keystone XL pipeline to be built from the far north (Alberta) to our far south (the Gulf of Mexico - which has already taken a dire hit from a foreign oil company - British Petroleum - which let loose tons of raw oil killing all sea life, livelihoods of fishermen from the entire Gulf Coast with their explosion and oil rig spill, effects of which - a dead zone - are still in evidence in the Gulf. Nothing wrong with President Obama's prudence in forestalling a pipeline disaster by vetoing the Keystone XL plan. Why should a trans-american pipeline (originating in Alberta, CA) bring tar sands down into the laps of the Koch Brothers who own Louisiana refineries and are just waiting to add to their great heap of gold which they can lavish on Repbublican conservative POTUS wannabes, thanks to Citizens United? Keystone is a major infrastructure calamity waiting to happen.
69
This letter should be taught in all critical thinking classes as an ideologicial screed with no supporting facts to back up any of the hypebole.
actually, the gulf beaches are beautiful, and no lasting effects, thank goodness, from that spill
Put the veto down as another tactical blunder by President Obama that now puts control over the distribution from a major oil source in the hands of other countries at a time when energy independence is of primary importance.
This portion of Keystone (note that several other legs of the pipeline have been up and running for years, deliver oil within the US) was aimed at delivering oil to the Gulf for further distribution around the world. Even though it wouldn't directly contribute to our energy independence, it gives us significant influence over its distribution, a major international political lever.
The environmental impact has been overstated. The most salient of the arguments is that Canada's oil fields are damaging to the environment. But clearly, that oil flow won't stop with the death of the pipeline. Nor will the greenhouse gas emissions from use of that oil. Right now, the oil goes into tankers to China, and in long, clumsy, dangerous trains that with frightening regularity derail, leak and burst into flames across the US. This is the real disaster waiting to happen.
This portion of Keystone (note that several other legs of the pipeline have been up and running for years, deliver oil within the US) was aimed at delivering oil to the Gulf for further distribution around the world. Even though it wouldn't directly contribute to our energy independence, it gives us significant influence over its distribution, a major international political lever.
The environmental impact has been overstated. The most salient of the arguments is that Canada's oil fields are damaging to the environment. But clearly, that oil flow won't stop with the death of the pipeline. Nor will the greenhouse gas emissions from use of that oil. Right now, the oil goes into tankers to China, and in long, clumsy, dangerous trains that with frightening regularity derail, leak and burst into flames across the US. This is the real disaster waiting to happen.
4
"Even though it wouldn't directly contribute to our energy independence, it gives us significant influence over its distribution, a major international political lever."
That might be true in Russia, but here in the US the collective 'we' really doesn't apply to this situation. The oil is being piped to private companies, who will do with it as they wish. If it's more profitable for them to ship their refined products to Asia/Europe/etc., there isn't any reason to think 'we' will have any say in the matter.
Regardless, the environmental impact isn't restricted to leaks. When sustainable energy sources drive the cost of oil down and the tar sands are no longer viable, are we then left with an 1100-mile long superfund site requiring expensive cleanup?
While it's generally stated that 'oil flow won't stop with the death of the pipeline," that theory has been challenged repeatedly recently, both by the lower price of oil and by the fact that projects have been cancelled due to the repeated blockage of the Northern Gateway pipeline. Why do you assume that Keystone would be any different?
That might be true in Russia, but here in the US the collective 'we' really doesn't apply to this situation. The oil is being piped to private companies, who will do with it as they wish. If it's more profitable for them to ship their refined products to Asia/Europe/etc., there isn't any reason to think 'we' will have any say in the matter.
Regardless, the environmental impact isn't restricted to leaks. When sustainable energy sources drive the cost of oil down and the tar sands are no longer viable, are we then left with an 1100-mile long superfund site requiring expensive cleanup?
While it's generally stated that 'oil flow won't stop with the death of the pipeline," that theory has been challenged repeatedly recently, both by the lower price of oil and by the fact that projects have been cancelled due to the repeated blockage of the Northern Gateway pipeline. Why do you assume that Keystone would be any different?
1
The Times does little to put this author's argument in context. Can you tell us a little more about him beyond that he wrote a book called "Rust"?
Since he ignores issues beyond pipeline safety, readers would be right to wonder what his broader agenda might be.
Since he ignores issues beyond pipeline safety, readers would be right to wonder what his broader agenda might be.
17
I second this query.... a little more on the author please. For example, was he paid for the month he spent, two years ago, to watch the inspection of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline? By whom?
Author Waldman, as other commenters also note, wildly assumes that tar sands oil production is inevitable. He doesn't address whether this would be disastrous (for limiting climate change, never mind accidents) and he doesn't acknowledge the urgency - and real potential - of alternative energy sources.
Author Waldman, as other commenters also note, wildly assumes that tar sands oil production is inevitable. He doesn't address whether this would be disastrous (for limiting climate change, never mind accidents) and he doesn't acknowledge the urgency - and real potential - of alternative energy sources.
1
Yes, indeed. This article is just the first tip-off that the pipeline folks have re-grouped & are coming at this from another direction.
2
Your argument for tighter regulation would merit debate if you acknowledged, better yet, conceded the intransigent pro-pipeline position of no regulation. Ever! You are talking an industry whose lobbying efforts alone exceed the gross national budgets of mid sized countries. If, indeed, Mr. Obama succeeded in having these strict guidelines in place, the GOP would craft a bill overriding or at best weakening them. And they would attach that rider to the defense authorization bill so no one would vote it down.
And, while you are at it, would you address the owners of private land, which XL wishes to take over by eminent domain? Too many moving parts in this thing, and if we are to be clear eyed about it, we might not settle for that either/ or position you seem to advance.
And, while you are at it, would you address the owners of private land, which XL wishes to take over by eminent domain? Too many moving parts in this thing, and if we are to be clear eyed about it, we might not settle for that either/ or position you seem to advance.
36
Somehow there is no regulation? The owner does twice what the regulation requires because oil leaks cost so much. Really???
The issue with Keystone XL has never really been about safety, although that was one of the main arguments being made about it. Were the only concern about Keystone one of safety, it would have been built years ago. Whatever arguments have been being made, the only real issue, and that pushing the concern of those opposing the pipeline, even while they argued differently, is anti-fossil fuel sentiment, in the belief that usage of any fossil fuels is causing catastrophic climate change.
It's curious that even now, we continue to debate everything except that which is really driving the controversy. Every infrastructure project you care to mention gets faced with myriad legal challenges on all kinds of issues, very few of which are really the reasons for opposition. And we spend enormous time, money, and energy resolving issues of little real concern to the contending parties, with everybody piously taking positions on tangential stuff when the real issue is something entirely different.
No wonder we can't build a gosh-durned thing anymore in this country.
It's curious that even now, we continue to debate everything except that which is really driving the controversy. Every infrastructure project you care to mention gets faced with myriad legal challenges on all kinds of issues, very few of which are really the reasons for opposition. And we spend enormous time, money, and energy resolving issues of little real concern to the contending parties, with everybody piously taking positions on tangential stuff when the real issue is something entirely different.
No wonder we can't build a gosh-durned thing anymore in this country.
4
I can't even stomach reading your opinion piece. Doesn't the NYTimes understand what is happening to our world? Is this a time for compromise on dirty energy? There are alternatives. Why are we not pursuing those things and very aggressively?
52
To answer your last question; because they dont exist.
Carolyn,
Yes, it's definitely a time for compromise on dirty energy. Research and development the world over is pursuing effective, affordable alternative energy. Little by little gains are being made and will continue to be made until, with luck, fossil fuel use will be substantially reduced In the meantime people world wide will be burning fossil fuels for energy. Drilling and transporting of petroleum products will continue as demand dictates. Aren't safer, more regulated methods for transporting and drilling better alternatives than continuing with more dangerous processes?
BTW, if you are serious about reducing CO2 emissions in your city, why don't you start a campaign to eliminate remote car starters and drive thru windows at fast food outlets and banks? You never know--it may catch on.
Yes, it's definitely a time for compromise on dirty energy. Research and development the world over is pursuing effective, affordable alternative energy. Little by little gains are being made and will continue to be made until, with luck, fossil fuel use will be substantially reduced In the meantime people world wide will be burning fossil fuels for energy. Drilling and transporting of petroleum products will continue as demand dictates. Aren't safer, more regulated methods for transporting and drilling better alternatives than continuing with more dangerous processes?
BTW, if you are serious about reducing CO2 emissions in your city, why don't you start a campaign to eliminate remote car starters and drive thru windows at fast food outlets and banks? You never know--it may catch on.
What alternatives? There are no alternatives to fossil fuels for transportation today or for many decades. This oil will be used so why not be safe?
Your reasoning is sound, but only if one accepts as inevitable your statement that "Ours is an energy thirsty world, and when demand drives up the price of oil, out it will come". I for one do not accept that as inevitable, as energy does not come only in liquid form. If I am proved wrong, science tells me that the planet and all who inhabit it are ultimately doomed. That may be so, but it is not inevitable, and we should not accept it as such.
46
Well the entire history of civilization is against you, but of course as a progressive you are correct. Would you support 500 new nuclear reactors in the us. and pay for them?
Well said, Michael. Waldman completely ignores the worldwide collapse in oil prices in the last year, which works directly against his argument.
The misleading premise of this article is the author's attempt to confuse the XL pipeline, a project that is not vital to the well-being of Americans, with elements of our crumbling infrastructure that are vital to our well-being.
We have bridges in great need of repair. Our highways need constant maintenance and many of them need to be widened, re-rngineered, or replaced. We have dams that have serious structural problems that are overdue to be addressed. We need to rebuild our transportation system with faster rail travel. Most of our public transportation is second or third rate Compare the NYC subway system with that of Paris, if you will.
This is the infrastructure we need. Even John Boehner agrees that we need to invest in it, although he has claimed for two years that he cannot find the funds to appropriate to these repairs (the idea of taxing those who have excessive amounts of money seems to elude him).
I agree with Mr. Wildman's premise that infrastructure like pipelines need to be well-regulated, and that they are vital parts of our national infrastructure. I also believe that Mr. Waldman that he failed to mention our electrical grid, coal, and other forms of energy sourcing and transferral and excluded the more important idea of investing in a well-regulated system of renewable energy resources. The purpose of Mr. Waldman's piece here is to promote the idea of the XL pipeline by cloaking it in a specious argument for infrastructure that is sorely needed.
We have bridges in great need of repair. Our highways need constant maintenance and many of them need to be widened, re-rngineered, or replaced. We have dams that have serious structural problems that are overdue to be addressed. We need to rebuild our transportation system with faster rail travel. Most of our public transportation is second or third rate Compare the NYC subway system with that of Paris, if you will.
This is the infrastructure we need. Even John Boehner agrees that we need to invest in it, although he has claimed for two years that he cannot find the funds to appropriate to these repairs (the idea of taxing those who have excessive amounts of money seems to elude him).
I agree with Mr. Wildman's premise that infrastructure like pipelines need to be well-regulated, and that they are vital parts of our national infrastructure. I also believe that Mr. Waldman that he failed to mention our electrical grid, coal, and other forms of energy sourcing and transferral and excluded the more important idea of investing in a well-regulated system of renewable energy resources. The purpose of Mr. Waldman's piece here is to promote the idea of the XL pipeline by cloaking it in a specious argument for infrastructure that is sorely needed.
74
HDNY:
"a project that is not vital to the well-being of Americans"
****
This would take a solid understanding of our refined oil market, what it means to the US economy now and going forward, how and where we get the crude to support it and what this pipeline means to it.
I'm not sure even the president understands it, as he continues to make the erroneous claim that Canada will send its "oil to the Gulf where it will be sold everywhere else."
"a project that is not vital to the well-being of Americans"
****
This would take a solid understanding of our refined oil market, what it means to the US economy now and going forward, how and where we get the crude to support it and what this pipeline means to it.
I'm not sure even the president understands it, as he continues to make the erroneous claim that Canada will send its "oil to the Gulf where it will be sold everywhere else."
3
AACNY-
A few billionaires will make a nice profit on the XL pipeline. A number of people will get temporary work from it, and a handful of people will get permanent jobs.
Compare that to the impact that would be caused by the failure of a few of our dams. According to the American Society of Civil Engineers, that gave the state of our dams a D in 2013:
"The average age of the 84,000 dams in the country is 52 years old. The nation’s dams are aging and the number of high-hazard dams is on the rise. Many of these dams were built as low-hazard dams protecting undeveloped agricultural land. However, with an increasing population and greater development below dams, the overall number of high-hazard dams continues to increase, to nearly 14,000 in 2012. The number of deficient dams is estimated at more than 4,000, which includes 2,000 deficient high-hazard dams. The Association of State Dam Safety Officials estimates that it will require an investment of $21 billion to repair these aging, yet critical, high-hazard dams."
http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/a/#p/dams/overview
That's what I consider a project that's vital to the well-being of Americans. Do you really think the Keystone XL pipeline deserves more support?
A few billionaires will make a nice profit on the XL pipeline. A number of people will get temporary work from it, and a handful of people will get permanent jobs.
Compare that to the impact that would be caused by the failure of a few of our dams. According to the American Society of Civil Engineers, that gave the state of our dams a D in 2013:
"The average age of the 84,000 dams in the country is 52 years old. The nation’s dams are aging and the number of high-hazard dams is on the rise. Many of these dams were built as low-hazard dams protecting undeveloped agricultural land. However, with an increasing population and greater development below dams, the overall number of high-hazard dams continues to increase, to nearly 14,000 in 2012. The number of deficient dams is estimated at more than 4,000, which includes 2,000 deficient high-hazard dams. The Association of State Dam Safety Officials estimates that it will require an investment of $21 billion to repair these aging, yet critical, high-hazard dams."
http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/a/#p/dams/overview
That's what I consider a project that's vital to the well-being of Americans. Do you really think the Keystone XL pipeline deserves more support?
19
But that's precisely what happens--the oil will go onto the world market. Why do we need to get it to the gulf, then, if we were refining it solely for use in this country? All oil goes onto the international market, to be sold. The XL pipeline is a conduit to get it from Canada to the world market--it won't stop and be refined here. The United States is essentially a hallway to get it from one place to another.
And what of the inevitable environmental disasters? This pipeline passes through a major aquifer--if that gets polluted, the citizens in the middle of the country are in big trouble.
You might do a little research on this subject before accusing the President of not understanding what the pipeline means to the United States. He does, and that's why he vetoed it.
And what of the inevitable environmental disasters? This pipeline passes through a major aquifer--if that gets polluted, the citizens in the middle of the country are in big trouble.
You might do a little research on this subject before accusing the President of not understanding what the pipeline means to the United States. He does, and that's why he vetoed it.
If the only opposition to the XL was the possible environmental damage from leaks, this would, indeed, make sense. There are two additional issues that this editorial does not address: the damage caused by building the line through miles of sensitive habitat, and its facilitation of tar sand oil extraction and utilization, the dirtiest of dirty fuels.
84
What you yourself are not addressing is the fact that rail-borne oil, with its inevitable spills and accidents, does far more damage to the environment than a well-regulated pipeline. And of course, tar sands oil is going to be extracted as long as it's profitable to do so, whether this pipeline is built or not.
Not to mention where the oil goes, who buys it, who benefits from it, what the alternatives are. Way more than 2 additional issues with this pipeline.
Environmentally unsafe Canadian Slush, being sold to China(one of few countries willing to use it). Why should we split our country in half to achieve this, destroying environment and animals? There is also the problem of passing through an Indian Reservation. Let Canada build their pipeline across their country to a port if they're so keen to set on a pipeline.
70
We up north will build our own pipelines. Unquestionably. And the USA will still buy the oil. We can pipeline massive amounts from Alberta, through the Rocky Mountains and into B.C. Lots of it is then likely to go down into Washington State for sale and then on to Oregon and California. And some will even be pipe-lined all the way to the east coast and then sold to the USA's northeast. The oil for sale will end up costing more. But Americans will still buy it. They'll have to.
In 2008 I got rid of my car. I ride my bike for all my errands or take public transportation. I realize this isn't possible for everyone. But observing my neighbors here in Brooklyn who continue to drive for short errands it kind of irks me. How much of this oil is being used frivolously? The price at the pump should reflect the true costs, including future expenses and losses caused by global warming.
22
Did you take a hot shower, flush the toilet and plug in your computer? How do you and the people who buy your goods or services earn their living. Your awareness makes you even more compliciate. When you can scale up your dreams to facilitate life and get the subway to run, then get back on your high horse.
Problem is, pipeline regulations will be completely written by oil company lobbyists, and will be exceedingly weak and loophole-laden. That's what they've paid the big bucks for. Their wholly-owned subsidiary known as Congress will obediently pass anything the lobbyists come up with. As for maintenance, well, that doesn't seem to be something that has ever been on Washington's radar. Like alternate energy.
93
Once again, same as Collins, NYT publishes a column with no research. The image of a 40 year old Alaskan pipeline is deceiving. The XL, except for pumping stations will be underground, monitored 24/7 by electronic pigs. Furthermore, the extraction of the shale oil in ND and Alberta is on going. With or without the pipeline. Instead the oil travels by train. The oil trains are very inefficient and dangerous. Just yesterday there was another derailment in Ill, that train was 105 tankers. Last month another derailment in WV burned for days. Last year 47 lost their lives in Montreal. The President never mentioned these accidents, and the billionaire greenie radicals do a great job of keeping the public misinformed. In the US, everyday the equivlient of a 17 mile oil train is moving through your cities and towns, all because radicals with money are trying to prove a point.
14
"Billionaire greenie radicals"? Where?? That's absurd. Scientists working from grant to grant, students on loans, families living off grid, middle class folk who recycle everything they possibly can, grandmothers on social security. There's the occasional Tom Steyer--a billionaire for sure, but he feeds the organizations that try to get the truth out. He is not one who feeds the pockets of people directly, like Sen. James Inhofe who will say anything to keep his pockets lined. Al Gore is rich for sure, but someone has to be able financially to step up to the plate, when you've got someone like the head of Exxon Mobile who stands up and says "I don't care about the planet; I care about human beings." And he gets an applause from those who will then get paid to do so.
2
The problem with corporate apologists is that they can never recognize the damage they do to everyone through planetary degradation of air and water. Those costs get paid for by all our grand children and that is too far down the timeline for their concern. The rail cars that catch fire etc. are terrible, but they are small and local compared to the particulates and global damage that will be done through the use of the vast quantities of shale oil delivered by pipeline and used by China et al.
If there is a point to be made it is that we need to shift to renewable energy as much as possible if capitalism run rampant is not to annihilate us through planetary degradation and wars for economic supremacy. At this rate humans are proving too "smart" and too selfish to assure their own survival.
If there is a point to be made it is that we need to shift to renewable energy as much as possible if capitalism run rampant is not to annihilate us through planetary degradation and wars for economic supremacy. At this rate humans are proving too "smart" and too selfish to assure their own survival.
3
I kind of think the article was fairly researched and reasonable.
I don't understand your comment. The author makes the same point as you do about oil transported by train.
I don't understand your comment. The author makes the same point as you do about oil transported by train.
A well-regulated pipeline is always a better idea than an unregulated one. Moving energy is intrinsically risky.
One infrastructure solution not mentioned for ail trains, aka "bomb trains", is simple, immediate and effective. If you transport hazmat by rail in conventional (read: unhardened) rail stock, local, state or Federal regulation can limit the transit speed to 15 mph when traveling through developed or otherwise special territory (think: Grand Canyon Natl Park). This would a) reduce risk of derailment, b) reduce risk of tank car rupture, c) reduce risk of fire, d) IMMEDIATELY encourage shippers to upgrade rail stock and rail bed infrastructure to get out from under restrictions. Win, win, win, win...
One infrastructure solution not mentioned for ail trains, aka "bomb trains", is simple, immediate and effective. If you transport hazmat by rail in conventional (read: unhardened) rail stock, local, state or Federal regulation can limit the transit speed to 15 mph when traveling through developed or otherwise special territory (think: Grand Canyon Natl Park). This would a) reduce risk of derailment, b) reduce risk of tank car rupture, c) reduce risk of fire, d) IMMEDIATELY encourage shippers to upgrade rail stock and rail bed infrastructure to get out from under restrictions. Win, win, win, win...
8
Making pipelines safer and cleaner would be a much smarter move and better for the environment. The veto, on the other hand, was just a dumb political move that did nothing for the environment.
8
Dumb political move? Because he had so much to gain by giving on this?
This wasn't a compromise of any kind. It was an attempt by Congress to exercise executive branch powers. Obama was right and justified to veto that bill.
If an argument could be made that signing the bill would gain Obama political leverage on another topic, then maybe you'd be correct. But in this case, the opposite is true — Obama can now keep Keystone as a political token (though I hope he rejects it).
Vetoing would have been the dumb move.
This wasn't a compromise of any kind. It was an attempt by Congress to exercise executive branch powers. Obama was right and justified to veto that bill.
If an argument could be made that signing the bill would gain Obama political leverage on another topic, then maybe you'd be correct. But in this case, the opposite is true — Obama can now keep Keystone as a political token (though I hope he rejects it).
Vetoing would have been the dumb move.
1
Due to the constant campaign of the industry for less regulation, invariably weakening regulations over time, proposing/instituting strengthened regulations are not an adequate concept.
Likewise, the decades upon decades that the industry will fight judgements against it for damages caused by catastrophe from its daily operations are sign-posts of warning for those in a position be damaged by such activities.
Instead, the industry should be required to post a substantial cash bond to cover accidents from such operations, so that injured parties don't have to go through what the country watched Exxon put Alaskans through for decades - almost an entire generation.
A substantial cash bond, as well as helping up-grade local first responders' equipment/training for possible disaster.
Likewise, the decades upon decades that the industry will fight judgements against it for damages caused by catastrophe from its daily operations are sign-posts of warning for those in a position be damaged by such activities.
Instead, the industry should be required to post a substantial cash bond to cover accidents from such operations, so that injured parties don't have to go through what the country watched Exxon put Alaskans through for decades - almost an entire generation.
A substantial cash bond, as well as helping up-grade local first responders' equipment/training for possible disaster.
16
An unrealistic demand. That's why we have insurance companies. Since any costs are unknowable forcing a company to place working capital in a nonproductive position is overkill.
nyhuguenot - such a bond would force discipline, and be a source of immediate relief in case of disaster, instead of innocent bystanders becoming victims of a delayed claims process, as well as disaster victims.
1
This is nothing but a power play by Obama. There will a day in the not to distant future when oil supplies become scarce. Obama's legacy as the laziest President will be confirmed due to his failure to allow the pipeline to be timely built.
7
Lazy? Perhaps tired from fighting the most stubborn and willfully ignorant Congress in history, but not lazy.
43
I totally agree with this smartly written story. Regulate the proposed Keystone pipeline to meet or exceed the most stringent of standards such as the Alaska pipeline. I would not expect anything less and perhaps I would tack on some caveats. Pipelines are essential infrastructure just like our fragmented and aging electric grid system. Both distribute oil, gas or raw forms for commercial conversion or feeding our dwellings for heat or in the use of creating electricity. There is no real reason to prevent Keystone from being built that has not been more than reasonably addressed that were issues. This is personal to President Obama - those who propose or those State the pipeline crosses are political enemies and thus Keystone will not be approved because he won't. Folks the President is beholden to folks who voted for him but will never cede anything to those who didn't vote for me. He does not have the best interest of all the people just the 53% of the people.
32
Laws come down to how many cops you got on the beat and how the cops feel about their authority. (Ferguson demonstrates this very well, in the opposite direction - cops making up their own 'laws' with a feeling of total unaccountable power on their beats.) You expect us to pass 'regulations', ,ok, that might happen. But then how are we going to increase federal inspectors and give them enough autonomy to have the new 'regulations' mean anything? Riddle me that, oh idealistic one.
9
This was the president paying off his long overdue political debt to the environmentalists. They had waited long enough
It should have been obvious to anyone after he approved the other pipeline, Alberta Clipper*, and then quietly agreed to double its capacity to the consternation of environmentalists, who are suing him over it.
*"Experts Say That Battle on Keystone Pipeline Is Over Politics, Not Facts"
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/09/us/senate-panel-approves-keystone-pipe...
It should have been obvious to anyone after he approved the other pipeline, Alberta Clipper*, and then quietly agreed to double its capacity to the consternation of environmentalists, who are suing him over it.
*"Experts Say That Battle on Keystone Pipeline Is Over Politics, Not Facts"
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/09/us/senate-panel-approves-keystone-pipe...
2
Really, and just what percentage do the Republicans represent; not much over the one per cent.
1
Infrastructure cuts into profits, it won't happen.
Although it certainly would be great to see some decent maintenance anywhere at all.
Although it certainly would be great to see some decent maintenance anywhere at all.
7
Although expensive, that is why no one wants to pay for it. But, ultimately, infrastructure helps create profits!
Keystone is infrastructure and oil industry does not want to pay more than it can but they should have stiff regulations.
Keystone is infrastructure and oil industry does not want to pay more than it can but they should have stiff regulations.
Hi Dan, What you say is true but do we know how many of our esteemed representatives and judges are invested in the industry? They are in it for the profits too.
Business is eager to cut away overhead, when the system collapses because of it they take it off the taxes.
Does BP pay taxes to the USA? Did they declare a loss the year they blew that hole in the Gulf?
Business is eager to cut away overhead, when the system collapses because of it they take it off the taxes.
Does BP pay taxes to the USA? Did they declare a loss the year they blew that hole in the Gulf?
Kill it! Show the Republicans that Keystone for the Koch Bros is not a priority for Americans.
124
This should be an eye opener for the country. It reminds Americans that the president makes purely political decisions for his big political donors.
It also shows that those who call themselves "environmentalists"within the democratic party are a part of its most extremists fringe and incapable of reason.
Real environmentalists could not support this move on the grounds that it would be better for the environment.
It also shows that those who call themselves "environmentalists"within the democratic party are a part of its most extremists fringe and incapable of reason.
Real environmentalists could not support this move on the grounds that it would be better for the environment.
1
Nothing except the President's recalcitrance to accept 6 years of engineering studies that are positive shows that this is a purely political action than your comment.
Sounds reasonable until the real costs of oil is factored in, meaning the Defense Department private security for the industry, the damage to the environment and health. Let's just save the money spent on cleanups and the middle east and devote it to renewables and save the planet instead? Because the Kochs paid millions to get the Canadian dirty oil to the gulf refineries? Because we believe Canada deserves a break?
No, global warming is real. We need to end our dependence on oil. Oil is like heroin. There's no good outcome from regulating it. Time to end addiction.
No, global warming is real. We need to end our dependence on oil. Oil is like heroin. There's no good outcome from regulating it. Time to end addiction.
151
When the socalled renewables can power every single home, factory and car in the nation then you can cut off the flow of oil and coal. Until then we need the carbon fuels.
Negotiate: Pipeline in exchange for a price on carbon.
7
The best way to achieve the outcome desired by environmentalist is to enact a carbon tax. This pipeline is a means to obtain a carbon tax. The objective of the environmentalists is to reduce use of carbon based fuel, the objective of the pipeline supporters is to find a more efficient way to get the oil to market; we have the makings of a compromise.
Declined!!! Just keep using rail if you insist on foolish price on carbon that has not worked anywhere and will impact our economy in a negative way.
I ask the contributor, will there ever be a point where as a society we say "enough'? We are now (and have been) experiencing effects of climate change, and nobody knows quite for certain what effect it has in the long run. One scenario says this change could be catastrophic for plants and animals now living on this planet. And the author seems to be saying "everyone else is doing it, so we might as well, damn the consequences". I have questions for the author: If tomorrow, or next week, or whenever, we start to see irreversible effects that can be tied solidly to climate change, and we find even more solid evidence that our over-reliance on fossil fuels is the cause (never mind the fact that there is already a preponderance of strong evidence to this end), will you take the same position? If so, is that not irresponsible? Are you a lemming? The last time I checked, I wasn't, but what about you?
15
When evidence is presented, real evidence and not computer projections based on subjective data show it to us. Extrapolating future climate projections from 150 years of weather data into hundreds of thousands of years of climate is meaningless.
Well the history of man says that there is no limit to man's wants and desires, especially if you are poor and hungry as a lot of the world it. There is no over-reliance on fossil fuels, around here there is no alternative if you wish to live.
Tell this to the people living on the Kalamazoo river in Michigan. A Canadian oil leak caused billions in damages and the river still isn't healthy. Humans will exploit that filth in Alberta and their will be spills. Our children will thank us for our foresight.
66
The 2010 Enbridge tar sands pipeline spill — worst inland spill in U.S. history, with over $1.2 billion dollars in clean-up costs (to date).
Kill the filthy Keystone XL.
Kill the filthy Keystone XL.
4
Let's be real here. With minimal federal funding for oversight and Republican cries for small government and fewer restrictions, adequate regulation is an idea whose time will has long since past.
54
Set up an independant oversight agency that is funded by the pipeline tariff, same as done in Alaska after the 1989 Exxon Valdez. PWSRCAC (Prince William Sound Regional Citizens Advisory Council) was established as part of the post Exxon Valdez OPA 90 legislation and funds a very effective citizens oversight group that closely monitors the oil movements in and out of Valdez, Alaska. Build the pipeline but closely monitor the operation to insure long term maintenance and oil spill response equipment and infrastructure is is set up correctly.
This is clever. Since excessive regulation will either kill it outright or render it so expensive to operate that it won't be cost effective we can easily be talking about the same thing, one direct and up front and the other by indirection and skillful lawyering. Think about this the next time a train full of oil cars derails next to your town.
25
Seems like the President's best and richest friend in the world, Warren Buffet will enjoy filling his rail cars with plenty of this oil material instead. His railroad carrying this oil will be putting anyone in the path of his railroads at risk.
5
Think about this the next time a pipeline ruptures and contaminates an aquifer or renders private property useless. Perhaps the only "smart pigs" are the corporate hogs who want to fill their coffers further by exporting more at the nations's expense.
1
Laird~ "Think about this the next time a train full of oil cars derails next to your town".
Check out pics of the Mayflower, AR pipeline rupture oil spill then get back to us! Many of the occupants of these homes have abandoned them, finding them uninhabitable. They will never get the stench of the oil out of their homes and the surrounding earth. Would you let your children play in a yard that has been contaminated by a product that contains multiple toxins and carcinogens? Would YOU drink the water?
Check out pics of the Mayflower, AR pipeline rupture oil spill then get back to us! Many of the occupants of these homes have abandoned them, finding them uninhabitable. They will never get the stench of the oil out of their homes and the surrounding earth. Would you let your children play in a yard that has been contaminated by a product that contains multiple toxins and carcinogens? Would YOU drink the water?
1
The answer is not regulation. It is stopping fossil fuels by any means necessary. If Canada wants to kill the planet, let it do so with no help from the US and with as much difficulty imposed as possible.
101
Natural Gas is best...coal is worst.
1
Bill, climb down from your tree and see the real world.
Do you really believe that the world can prosper from the current technology of solar and wind power only? You do realize that to produce those sources , one needs to use that horrible stuff called fossil fuels to make those items, right.
I await the first solar Boeing 777 attempting to take off from the airport near you, now that would be a sight to behold.
I await to see the system you'll have in place to produce the necessary electrical needs to recharge your wonder world of a non fossil fuel world.
Do you really believe that the world can prosper from the current technology of solar and wind power only? You do realize that to produce those sources , one needs to use that horrible stuff called fossil fuels to make those items, right.
I await the first solar Boeing 777 attempting to take off from the airport near you, now that would be a sight to behold.
I await to see the system you'll have in place to produce the necessary electrical needs to recharge your wonder world of a non fossil fuel world.
4
I've always been curious as to what they intend to do with all the batteries and invertors necessary to store electricity for those extended periods of no sun. The batteries are filled with chemicals which have to be processed, a nasty and polluting business and the metals will have to be recycled, another nasty and polluting operation.
I'll take Mr. Waldman at his word that he is neither "pro-pipeline or anti-pipeline" but for "infrastructure we can maintain" even if he comes out suspiciously for infrastructure that just happens to be a pipeline.
Unfortunately, Mr. Waldman fails to consider that not all infrastructure is created equal. For example, an oil pipeline or anything else that facilities or reduces the cost of delivering oil will promote the use of oil just as a high power transmission line from a region of high wind or solar energy resources will reduce the cost and promote the use those energy resources.
So, we can invest in infrastructure that will encourage use of a highly toxic substance by a means that will always have problems despite our best efforts and regulation (as Mr. Walden admits takes place in Alaska), or we can invest in infrastructure that has vastly fewer impacts and is far safer.
Mr. Walden offers us a false choice between a bad choice and a worse choice when the real choice is between a good choice and a stupid choice.
Unfortunately, Mr. Waldman fails to consider that not all infrastructure is created equal. For example, an oil pipeline or anything else that facilities or reduces the cost of delivering oil will promote the use of oil just as a high power transmission line from a region of high wind or solar energy resources will reduce the cost and promote the use those energy resources.
So, we can invest in infrastructure that will encourage use of a highly toxic substance by a means that will always have problems despite our best efforts and regulation (as Mr. Walden admits takes place in Alaska), or we can invest in infrastructure that has vastly fewer impacts and is far safer.
Mr. Walden offers us a false choice between a bad choice and a worse choice when the real choice is between a good choice and a stupid choice.
111
I am virtually certain that, when an electric energy transmission company or entrepreneur sees profits to be made in building power transmission lines, then they will be built. That is the nature of the system.
I suspect, at that time, there will be tremendous opposition based on environmental and aesthetic concerns.
As you point out, there are bad choices, good choices, and better choices. Unfortunately, one person is unlikely toreally know the best choice than the next person.
The perfect is the enemy of the good.
I suspect, at that time, there will be tremendous opposition based on environmental and aesthetic concerns.
As you point out, there are bad choices, good choices, and better choices. Unfortunately, one person is unlikely toreally know the best choice than the next person.
The perfect is the enemy of the good.
The science is indisputable, we must vastly reduce the burning of fossil fuel.
This highly toxic Canadian tar sludge, diluted bitumen, is one of the worst, most energy intensive to produce, the most devastating in a spill.
No foreign corporation should ever be allowed to use eminent domain to essentially seize private American property.
Let the Canadians build their own pipeline.
In Canada.
This highly toxic Canadian tar sludge, diluted bitumen, is one of the worst, most energy intensive to produce, the most devastating in a spill.
No foreign corporation should ever be allowed to use eminent domain to essentially seize private American property.
Let the Canadians build their own pipeline.
In Canada.
177
A right of ways, not eminent domain, big difference.
Right on! and you know what, we will.
Did you know that the USA ships thermal coal to China thru Canada?
Why don't you protest that because we don't want it.
Why don't you protest that because we don't want it.
Channel the billions of dollars the pipeline would cost into solar energy deployment. Put solar collectors on every rooftop.
That would create thousands more jobs and help break the stranglehold that polluting energy has on the country and psyches of Americans.
Oh but, you can't bleed the populace with clean, green energy. Scratch that idea.
That would create thousands more jobs and help break the stranglehold that polluting energy has on the country and psyches of Americans.
Oh but, you can't bleed the populace with clean, green energy. Scratch that idea.
264
You are so correct. They can't fleece the populace since they can't exploit the sun. My son works for a solar installation company in Massachusetts that is owned by a multi-state utility company. They have so much work that they have brought in installation crews from other states to ease the workload. He is working 60 hours a week. In the WINTER!! In dreary Massachusetts. We are one of the states with the highest amount of solar energy. Massachusetts, where summer is 4 months long and winter seems eight! These are environmentally responsible good paying jobs that can't be outsourced. They offer year round maintenance work as well. Yet we see Republican controlled states like AZ which are fining people for installing solar panels. We have Republican states like NC which are penalizing people who drive Priuses and other energy efficient hybrid/electric cars. Why would we ever trust those who are owned lock, stock and barrel by the fossil fuel industry?
6
I thought this is private company. They decide what to spend the money on. Is there federal money involved?
I beg to differ. In Michigan Consumers Energy is asking it's customers to donate money to establish clean energy then it want's to charge them for it. Great racket if you ask me. You pay for me to set it up and when I do, I'm going to sell it to you even though after the set up it cost me virtually nothing to obtain.
Don't you just love the free market? The only people it's free for are Mega Corps.
Don't you just love the free market? The only people it's free for are Mega Corps.
Regulations can be ignored, or lawyers can find ways around them
16
The problem with a strict regulatory regime is it's here with one administration and gone with the next.
36
Either way the barrels are needed. SAGD is cheaper and cleaner energy extraction however. In the 1970's I pumped gas for $0.50 a gallon at my neighbour's garage. The U.S. economy in 1977 was $1 trillion. Today, it's $16 trillion. A 16 fold increase. I can buy gas in the Bellingham today for $2.50 per gallon, a 5 fold increase over time. This relative improvement is due, in large measure, to efficiency gains in the energy industry over time. Synthetic production from northern Alberta has much to do with this improvement in industry efficiency. Oil sands development equals a cleaner and more abundant energy future. That's the reason to approve Keystone. The president is wrong.
7
All the refined products from Keystone go overseas so XL does not help America in any way.
35
Keep US Energy in US Hands:
A fact check done by the Tampa Bay Times* rated Obama's claim that the Keystone Pipeline is for exporting oil outside the US "Mostly False."
FactCheck.Org** came up with a maximum of 50% exported, if that.
Your claim is untrue.
******
*"Obama says Keystone XL is for exporting oil outside the U.S., experts disagree"
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/nov/20/barack-ob...
**"More Keystone Spin"
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/03/more-keystone-spin/
A fact check done by the Tampa Bay Times* rated Obama's claim that the Keystone Pipeline is for exporting oil outside the US "Mostly False."
FactCheck.Org** came up with a maximum of 50% exported, if that.
Your claim is untrue.
******
*"Obama says Keystone XL is for exporting oil outside the U.S., experts disagree"
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/nov/20/barack-ob...
**"More Keystone Spin"
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/03/more-keystone-spin/
2
'Getting behind a law holding pipelines to higher standards seems an executive act far more courageous than a veto.'
And who exactly in this Congress of anti-regulation tea party ninnies would introduce such a law? There's the rub. If the Keystone is built it will be the least regulated pipeline ever. Count on it.
And who exactly in this Congress of anti-regulation tea party ninnies would introduce such a law? There's the rub. If the Keystone is built it will be the least regulated pipeline ever. Count on it.
34
The rub--and the rust--occurs when someone decides to change the law: the two parties in Congress have very different views and very different policies about regulation and it would be no different about regulating pipelines.
The situation you describe in Alaska is ideal; one company willing to submit to regulation and actually willing to increase its regulatory review! That kind of company is an endangered species. How many other companies citing the cost of regulation, the illusion of their own high standards, the intrusion of government, would be willing to agree to regulation rather than resist it and try to overturn it at every opportunity?
In a country where voting rights have been infringed upon, education standards have been resisted, and banks have gone wild, and common sense gun measures has met with no success, and current pipeline regulation has not prevented a plethora of spills, further regulation is the kind of good idea that can be done horribly wrong.
Regulation requires trust and agreement and depends on truth. Right now, in our national government, there is an absence of all three.
The situation you describe in Alaska is ideal; one company willing to submit to regulation and actually willing to increase its regulatory review! That kind of company is an endangered species. How many other companies citing the cost of regulation, the illusion of their own high standards, the intrusion of government, would be willing to agree to regulation rather than resist it and try to overturn it at every opportunity?
In a country where voting rights have been infringed upon, education standards have been resisted, and banks have gone wild, and common sense gun measures has met with no success, and current pipeline regulation has not prevented a plethora of spills, further regulation is the kind of good idea that can be done horribly wrong.
Regulation requires trust and agreement and depends on truth. Right now, in our national government, there is an absence of all three.
56
I agree. I live in a community where crude oil trains from the Bakken Crude states will be rolling through for decades with a much higher risk than a well regulated pipeline. There have been several derailments, explosions, and deaths related to oil trains recently and the amount of oil transfer by rail will only increase. The oil companies should be regulated toward highly regulated pipelines and not rail or truck oil transfers. The environmental need to stop global warming and lower emmisions from burning oil needs to be fought, but this is not the issue to have it rest on.
40
What makes you presume that the pipeline, shipping oil that does not benefit the US economy and harms the overall fabric of life and civilization, will be well regulated? As another poster said, the Republicans work hard to defund the EPA. It is perhaps the first of the agencies they would strangle in their bath tub, if they could.
2
American companies should build their own pipeline to carry the Williston Basin's Bakken crude oil to refineries. But that is a separate issue—and as you clearly recognize, Gary—very largely a safety issue, apart from the Keystone XL debate. Personally I would favor construction of a Bakken Pipeline, but I oppose construction of the Keystone XL. It's time for the US and Canada to begin making decisions on these matters based not merely on their economic desirability, but on other factors as well, including—first and foremost—the carbon footprint of the fossil fuels they will carry. The Keystone XL fails on this criteron; a Bakken Pipeline does not.
Rumor had it in the bill that passed congress there was a rider that made the taxpayer responsible for any leak clean ups. If this is true politicians are easily bought. Any okay of this pipeline must include precise language that the owner of the pipeline is responsible for maintenance and leakage cleanup. As a matter of fact a giant escrow account should be set up using a tax that will insure payment but not absolve the owner of anything over and above that escrow account.
33
I read the bill. TransCanada was not required to contribute to the oil spill liability fund. A Democratic attempt to pass a companion bill to require TransCanada to contribute was defeated by Republicans in the House.
17
We don't read bills in this country !
We just listen to the talking heads yell at each other and then form our opinion.
Truth and science dare not show their face.
We just listen to the talking heads yell at each other and then form our opinion.
Truth and science dare not show their face.
1
I find it strange that pipelines are thought of as just pipelines and nothing else. They are not seen as part of a huge interlocking energy transport network. How much rail tanker traffic will be generated by not building a pipeline? Which alternative is most environmentally sound? How much riverine transport? They are not isolated and separate and the whole structure needs to be discussed together.
5
Sensible comment. The difference between transporting a product that needs extensive refining before use and one that's ready to use, e.g. coal or gas, is meaningful If, indeed, a significant amount of the crude was destined for US use and not export, one might wonder why it's not being refined closer to the source and distributed for shorter distances as gasoline, heating oil, etc. The refineries should be either in Canada or just across the border. Dragging the stuff all the way to the Gulf to then put it into tankers doesn't make sense, except for export. There is that network to consider...
Oh, right. Greater complexity always works in engineering, huh? The more moving parts, the less chance of a breakdown in the system, right? (sarcasm alert)
2
Fracked oil contains a large amount of wax. The pipelines transporting this oil
will need to be heated to keep the waxy product from stopping up the pipes.
It will be enormously costly.
will need to be heated to keep the waxy product from stopping up the pipes.
It will be enormously costly.
8