Tar Sands require huge amounts of energy to remove the bitumen from the sand and huge amounts of water to make it transportable. That means the CO2 per barrel is 12% greater than conventional sources. Shiitty landscape?
When they come up with a viable alternative fuel I'm down for it. i worked with a renewable energy asset manager at a pwr and nat gas mkter. companies are trying, its just not viable . would you be happy if the government required solar panels on all new commercial construction. honest question
This probably isnt the best defense for the pipeline but one of the things to note about the train accident in Canada is that we are seeing record amounts of oil being transported by rail because of the boom in domestic oil production. one thing more infrastructure does is help with more independence and not being beholden to events in the middle east.
The XL does not run to the East Coast. Trains will continue to carry on that route. The XL will primarily provide feedstocks for refinery exports. It will actually divert oil from Midwest refineries effecting the price of domestic fuels to sell it a higher price overseas. Again my only opposition to it is that is is the dirtiest, highest CO2 oil source on Earth. Let's frac American shale before we heat up the planet and flood coastal cities to profit Canadians.
Actually dubious that's a great point. one that makes me think about my position. the oil and gas market has changed so much that we have to look at this issues in a different light. i am for the jobs but not having to build something not needed. the canadians need this more than we do because these refineries on the gulf are better equipped to handle the heavy crude. There is also the issue of the gulf coast being the refining capitol and we would be economically taking advantage of our advantage .
You have to look down the page a little on Google, under all the industry supported links they work so hard to keep on top. http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/globallaborinstitute/research/upload/GLI_KeystoneXL_Reportpdf.pdf The main points in this briefing paper can be summarized as follows: » The industry’s US jobs claims are linked to a $7 billion KXL project budget. However, the budget for KXL that will have a bearing on US jobs figures is dramatically lower—only around $3 to $4 billion. A lower project budget means fewer jobs. » The project will create no more than 2,500-4,650 temporary direct construction jobs for two years, according to TransCanada’s own data supplied to the State Department. » The company’s claim that KXL will create 20,000 direct construction and manufacturing jobs in the U.S is not substantiated. » There is strong evidence to suggest that a large portion of the primary material input for KXL—steel pipe—will not even be produced in the United States. A substantial amount of pipe has already been manufactured in advance of pipeline permit issuance. » The industry’s claim that KXL will create 119,000 total jobs (direct, indirect, and induced) is based on a flawed and poorly documented study commissioned by TransCanada (The Perryman Group study). Perryman wrongly includes over $1 billion in spending and over 10,000 person-years of employment for a section of the Keystone project in Kansas and Oklahoma that is not part of KXL and has already been built. » KXL will not be a major source of US jobs, nor will it play any substantial role at all in putting Americans back to work. Even if the Perryman figures were accurate, and all of the workers for the next phase of the project were hired immediately, the US seasonally adjusted unemployment rate would remain at 9.1%—exactly where it is now. » KXL will divert Tar Sands oil now supplying Midwest refineries, so it can be sold at higher prices to the Gulf Coast and export markets. As a result, consumers in the Midwest could be paying 10 to 20 cents more per gallon for gasoline and diesel fuel. These additional costs (estimated to total $2–4 billion) will suppress other spending and will therefore cost jobs.
And if the product is shipped from a Foreign Trade Zone, it never even gets taxed. http://ecowatch.com/2013/keystone-xl-export-bad-for-americans-economy/
The main benefit I see from the pipeline, from a purely Texas jobs perspective, is that it will feed the refineries along the Ship Channel and help keep those jobs there. Now fracking may have replaced that need, and then some. That's a great point. My main concern, beyond the terrible rape of the environment mining the Canadian tar sands is committing now, and will continue into the future, is that short of a dramatic change in the Canadian government's policy stance towards tar sands, what isn't shipped here will simply be shipped to Asia and South Asia. To China and India. So the damage won't be stopped. I have another concern, as well, which is that people are fooling themselves if they believe that fracking isn't doing tremendous damage to the environment. We may very well ruin huge amounts of our scarce underground water resources using this process. We need alternative energy sources other that oil and gas, like yesterday.
Another load being pushed by the people who don't care as long as they make theirs. They use PR firms, lawyers, lobbyist and paid for politicians with buzz words like "JERBS" to make the toadies do their bidding.
I wonder if voting on Keystone will come back to bite the GOP in the ass? Along with the Net Neutrality issue, we are exposing who is voting for their benefactors over doing what is right for the people. 2016 campaigns may run on who they work for. Right now the propaganda smokescreen is working, and hundreds of millions will be spent to keep that up; but the truth has a way of becoming undeniable, even for zealots.
I don't understand why the dems are so against this pipeline -- it's the cheapest, best, and safest way to get the oil from point a to point b.
It's the dirtiest oil on the planet; not needed in a period of declining world prices It's the most CO2 intensive It actually removes oil from the midwest US market raising US prices It moves Canadian oil through the US to a free trade zone so it avoids all US taxation It has major aquifer risks that could never be recovered from corporate interest other than that though it's a great idea
The US oil boom is going to be short lived, going to rely on the unstable Middle East? Yes its 4 times more intensive than conventional oil. However, technology is improving every year. Simple tax them. By the way some facts for you: World GHG emissions % from Canadian Oil Sands 0.15%, 2% from Canada. USA: 17.17% China 26.8% Point being? That was an issue as it was a risk to a major aquifer but has been redirected. There are pipelines already in the ground, lets not assume its been a huge problem and pipelines are statistically safer than rail cars which is where the oil will end up. Also Canada has the largest quantity of safe drinking water, we'll sell it to you.
Dubious, you have done a great job proving the argument for why this pipeline was nothing more than a pr spin for cash hungry oil companies. Not a dem, but definitely agree with your take after you comprehensively demolished those who wanted to make this pipeline - and their motives.
It was all but certain that Landrieu was going to be out, now it's absolutely certain. The next congress will just pass it.
I don't see the case against building it being strong enough. If it is being paid for by private industry, and it is running through areas that other pipelines already do - what is the increased risk? It may increase CO2 production but at this stage we are already facing climate change on a disastrous level. We're going to have to deal with rising oceans so I think that point is moot. I think Obama/dems are just stuck fighting this in a way Republicans are stuck fighting gay rights and for abortion limitations.
Umm.. so why make any changes at all and keep building environmental pollutants since it's all goin to hell anyways? It's not creating that many jobs, most of which are 2 yrs long, and it's just fattening the pockets of oil execs for export. There's already a pipeline in place.of course these oil execs run with a lot of folks in Congress so it will probably be passed next year... *sigh*
