The 2,100-mile Keystone pipeline, which hauls dilbit crude from Alberta, Canada, down to facilities in Illinois and Oklahoma, has some "possible safety issues," and Canadian energy company TranCanada has shut down the line temporarily to check it out.
Grady Semmens, spokesman for Calgary-based TransCanada, said the pipeline was shut down Wednesday evening as a precaution and was expected to restart Saturday.
"We found a small anomaly on the outside of the pipe after analyzing the data from an in-line inspection tool," Semmens said in an email. "As a precaution, we've shut down the line so we can go in and take a closer look."
Once the pipeline is restarted the company expects "normal operations and flows" for the rest of October, but TransCanada may have to "make up some volumes in November," Semmens said.
Heavy storms that have hit the area recently "are not helping" the operation, he said.
The much-contested Keystone XL -- the one Paul Ryan said Mitt Romney would approve on "day one" -- would be a $7 billion extension of this original line. The Canadian government recently took note of TransCanada's safety record, after a fired TransCanada employee claimed in an interview with CBC News that he was terminated after raising concerns "about the competency of some pipeline inspectors and the company’s lack of compliance with welding regulations."
“I wrote a series of emails to a series of project managers saying, ‘We can’t do this practice, we can’t do this practice, we can’t do this practice,’” Vokes said. “And I received increasingly pressured emails about how things were OK to do it that way.”
The biggest safety concern over these Keystone pipelines is their cargo, diluted bitumen, or "dilbit," which is nothing like its conventional crude counterpart.
Bitumen, the oil extracted from tar sands, is thick and sticky, and has to be diluted to flow through pipelines. The chemical mixture used to dilute it is a trade secret, but often includes carcinogens like benzene (pdf).
One million gallons of this same stuff gushed into the Kalamazoo River in Michigan in 2010 -- the biggest inland pipeline spill in US history -- and it is yet to be totally cleaned up. Watchdog groups have raised concerns that dilbit is more corrosive than conventional crude, which raises the possibility of leaks (the industry denies this, so pipeline technology has not changed). And once it leaks, as we saw in Michigan in 2010, cleanup of the unconventional material is a whole lot harder.
This past summer, TransCanada faced a new kind scrutiny from Nebraska environmental officials: they wanted to see the chemical information about dilbit that's currently protected by trade secret laws. "What are the characteristics of the products being transported?" a feedback report asked. "How toxic are the products being moved through the pipeline?"
With Keystone XL front and center in the campaign conversation, talk of pipeline safety has all but disappeared. Now might be the time to have another look at what happened in Michigan.
Leave a Comment:
Enbridge has recently applied to increase the amount of oil flowing thru their Line 5 twin pipeline that crosses the Straits of Mackinac by 50,000 barrels (2.1 million gallons) per day. The pipeline is 60 years old and Enbridge claims it's perfectly safe.
The National Wildlife Federation is warning of the environmental and economic devastation that would be caused by a spill in the region.
The Line 5 pipeline extends from Superior, WI to Sarnia, Ontario. The Straits of Mackinac are where Lakes Michigan and Huron come together and where the Mackinac Bridge joins Michigan's Upper and Lower peninsulas.
Source: Detroit Free Press 19 Oct 2012.
Enbridge does not equal TransCanada. Your argument against keystone is that a 60 year old pipeline from Enbridge woud be as susceptible to safety issues as a brand new state of the art pipeline? Weird argument...
Is that what you want to believe??? Here, read this:
http://www.ntsb.gov/news/2012/120710.html
Hey Nebraska. I understand the legalities of a "trade secret" under the patent laws but I wonder how they got the cocaine out of Coca-Cola? If they won't tell you what's in it, tell them so sorry. Just because they have a secret doesn't mean they get a pass! What's in it? The Ogallala aquifer has enough problems without these guys!
The 'cocaine in Coca-Cola' thing is largely a myth:
There was never very much, (i.e. you would have to drink it by the gallon to get high), and the company was actively looking for ways to get rid of it from day one.
That pipeline has had leaks for a long time. If there is a really big leak and gets into the water supply, you can kiss that water source goodbye. Tar sands are like peanut butter and sink instead of rising to the surface like regular crude. No one has figured out how to clean it up, like the spill in the Kalamazoo River where a 14 mile stretch of it had to be blocked off. That was over two years ago and it still isn't cleaned yet.
Let me say the upside of msnbc is the content, Maddow, Hayes and the rest of the nerd pack are superb. The downside is the design of your site. Over the last couple of years your website ranks last among media sites. Even at its best it sorts last in first out so you get to watch shows from the end to the beginning. Before I retired I managed teams of programmers and analyst. If the people who design your website worked for me, they would now be looking for work.
I know the people who receive this message are not responsible for the design and programming of your website but perhaps you could inform your IT department what a @!$%#ing crappy job they are doing.
Thanks for letting me rant, but seriously please get some proffessionals to design your site.
I am a 30 year computer professional who agrees that you site needs some work. You have great information, but also need a way for us to use it and search it. A data base would be nice. We see great things on your shows, but then we need to be able to use the chart, fact or video when we present everything to others. It just is not easy on your site. May I offer a great book to read..."Bob Berman's, The Suns Heartbeat and other stories from the star that powers our planet." In chapter 10 he talks about the carbon load carried by our planet and the relationship to the Sun's brightness, our orbit, our tilt etc. We are in REALLY BIG TROUBLE. We must not burn oil, we must rethink what we are doing. We have very little time left. My IQ is over 160. I have a BA and MED. I created national Housing Regulations for HUD (Section 8). My passions are chess, cosmology, sub atomic physics and my grandson. I have studied math through differential equations and can work E=Mc2 if you like. I am serious about what I say and careful about just being an alarmist.
The Keystone XL pipeline was "SOLD" to Canada's regulatory bodies as a deliberately designed program and method to increase the price that gasoline producing refineries in the Midwestern United States pay for crude oil.
TransCanada, the company sponsoring the pipeline, pitched the pipeline to Canadian regulators as a way of increasing the price of crude in the United States.1
Right now, Midwestern refineries are buying crude oil at a discount—and a deep discount at that. This allows them to produce products more cheaply than they would otherwise be able to.
Building Keystone XL would change that. If TransCanada’s analysis is accurate, under current market conditions, Keystone XL would add $20 to $40 to the cost of a barrel of Canadian crude—increasing the cost of oil in the United States by tens of billions of dollars.
Endnotes # 1
1 TransCanada, Western Canadian Crude Supply and Markets.February 12, 2009. Application to the National Energy Board(February 2009), Appendix 3-1, at 28, https://www.neb-one.gc.ca/lleng/livelink.exe?func=LL.getlogin&NextURL=%2Fll-eng%2Flivelink.
That was my understanding, USARonin, and thanks to Mark Whitney.
The XL would bring the crude to a seaport in the gulf, where it would be loaded onto tankers and shipped to wherever it would fetch the highest price, thus raising the price of oil in the USA. China and CNOOC could still buy it from there, or bid up the price, so I'm not sure that sixpack's observations are responsive to these issues. The environmental hazards discussed by Rob Berman and EBrown, infra, add to the reasons why the XL should be viewed with trepidation.
That's my understanding. There's been a fight going on in Canada for a while asking why this particular pipeline needs to be built when there is (some) unused refinery capacity in Canada and an existing pipeline that runs west-east that would connect with refineries inside Canada. The pipeline is being sold here as a way to get tar sands oil to refineries in the Gulf states. The west-east pipeline was shut down a generation ago. Eastern Canada imports oil from the Middle East while Alberta wants to build another pipeline inside Canada to run to the west coast against the objections of just about everyone west of the Rockies as it goes through mostly pristine forest to a port just north of a known dangerous and narrow straite.
My concern is with the kind of crude that is going into that pipeline as it's highly corrosive and it sinks. There is no technology available to successfully clean up oil from the bottom of bodies of water, only the stuff that floats.
If the pipeline is already coming down to the US, why do we need to build another to the Gulf? Oh, yeah, so they can sell it to the highest bidder. ( IE: not the USA)
Refining capacity is all on the gulf. Thats why. Why would US refiners send it China from the Gulf? Definitely not the shortest way to China, in fact it would add over 5000 miles to the entire shipping distance rather than sending it from the US west coast.
Mark, you're absolutely correct. We'll be selling it to countries. We may use some of it but....
After Obama Blocks Keystone Pipeline, China Readies $15.1 Billion Canadian Oil Deal
When President Barack Obama blocked the Keystone Pipeline, Republicans said the move would encourage Canada to pursue oil deals with China instead of the United States and cede a massive chunk of North American oil assets to the communist nation.
Now, with China's state-run oil company CNOOC poised to cut a $15.1 billion deal--the largest ever foreign acquisition for a Chinese company--with Canadian oil company Nexen, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) and Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) are in full backpedal mode.
In a draft letter to the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), Sen. Schumer writes:
I respectfully urge you, in your capacity as chairman of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), to withhold approval of this transaction to ensure U.S. companies reciprocal treatment.
Similarly, Rep. Pelosi is now sounding alarms of concern. In a statement, Pelosi spokesperson Drew Hamill said:
This deal prompts great concern about the Chinese government's continued attempts to use its state-owned enterprises to acquire global energy resources.
Saying "I told you so" offers little solace to concerned Republican lawmakers.
"Do we really want to be buying our oil or Canadian oil back from the Chinese?" said Sen. John Hoeven (R-NE). "If we don't take action to develop our resources and work with our closest friend and ally Canada, that's exactly what's going to happen."
Read more: http://nation.foxnews.com/canadian-oil/2012/07/28/after-obama-blocks-keystone-pipeline-china-readies-151-billion-canadian-oil-deal#ixzz29oPlgTeH
China owns 20% of Canada's tar sands. There is another pipeline proposal which the Canadian federal government has been trying to fast track that would go from Alberta to a port in BC. They're changing the environmental review process among other things, to squash resistance, including how coastal waters are protected. An alternative route has been proposed for this line if the one over the Rockies to a port on the BC coast won't fly: through the northern US to the US coast. And, yes, the destination is China.
I believe this information for this article came from...
Center for Media and Democracy
Here's a little information about these folks as one of the organizations funded by George Soros. A little information about him at the bottom.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Media_and_Democracy
http://www.groupsnoop.org/Center+for+Media+and+Democracy
Top 10 Reasons George Soros is dangerous "the single most destructive leftist demagogue in the country."
http://www.earstohear.net/soros.html
YAWN
.
sixpack,
You complain about the Center for Media and Democracy yet YOUR link is FoxNation???
Sheez, you guys never cease to amaze me!
How about some actual facts?
1) The owners of the TransCanada pipeline LIED about how many people would be employed in the United States
http://uspolitics.about.com/od/energy/a/Are-Keystone-Pipeline-Jobs-Estimates-Just-Pipe-Dreams.htm
2) Refiners in the United States are against the Keystone Pipeline:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/pipeline-fees-revolt-widens/article1548807/
3) TransCanada is SCREWING landowners in the United States:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/10/17/texas-landowners-take-rare-stand-against-oil-in-opposing-transcanada-project/
(YES, I chose the Fox News story purposely to show even FOX isn't all that fond of the pipeline)
4) The REPUBLICANS in Congress forced Obama's decision on the Keystone Pipeline:
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/story/2012-01-18/obama-rejects-keystone-pipeline/52655762/1
And finally, since you really DON'T know much about that pipeline:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keystone_Pipeline
You know sixpack, sometimes pure partisanship makes you stupid....instead of barfing up what you read on FoxNation, try reading other sources sometimes!!
I've already seen all the articles you posted oncearepublican a long time ago. Though their dates may be different, they all say the same thing as they have for several years now. Nothing has changed. The fact is it isn't going to matter significantly one way or the other. I wish everyone could run their vehicles on an air engine. That way you could just put a little air in the tank and go anywhere you want. I don't have time to really get into a big argument with you about anything as you have your beliefs and I have mine and it's more productive for me to be doing anything else. The minuscule number of people that will change their beliefs on this issue or will even see the article will not justify it.
By the way..... it's "sixpick" not "sixpack" and I'm not stupid. You have a way with words. Today you're lucky.
Looks like it should be six punked to me...
More FAUX Noise nonsense, and I'm wondering why people are so paranoid of George Soros and not Rupert Murdoch... Couldn't be because Rupie has Anglcan roots, now could it?
Of course not...
You are more afraid of George Soros than the Koch brothers? Truly insane.
AND nobody yet has mentioned climate change, the reason why the price of oil is really irrelevant. we need to shut down the tar sands (aka oil sands) if we want our children to have a livable planet. Not to mention our grandchildren. Does nobody care?
AND I've seen a material data safety sheet on bitumen - several years old, a different company - and the stuff in it is really scary. I'm sure that's why it's a trade secret.
msnbc tonight durning rachel maddows show, durning the last word and durning hardball, EACH AND EVERYTIME the show tried to show president obamas clips from his speech from today, the film studdered almost completly thur the whole clip. I noticed this yesterday, today, and i believe the day before yesterday also. i know in my heart this is purpose, maybe not from MSNBC, BUT who ever is running the clips or whoever is shooting the clips. please RACHEL show this to your company.
thank you
angela daugherty
los angeles, ca.
aad1ram@yahoo.com
p.s. i will come back in a bit and respond to artical on oil.
Presdident Obama is correct not too endorse this pipeline too quickly. Big oil companies are pushing this and even in the gas industry are some issues. One main issue you do not hear about is Fracking. The polluted underground water wells, etc.....and how it's been impacting landowners and farmers. There was even an episode on CSI about Fracking. Nonethelss, it is wise to study it, yes it will generate jobs but at the cost of the environment and people's health.
Romney on the other hand, has no concern about this and other pertinent issues. I am most certain those landowners and farmers are not support the GOP ticket. They're greedy, insensiitive, dishonest, and over ambitious.
I'm in Ohio and we hear allot about fracking. Fractured fracking well casings allowing fracking fluids into the water supply, the sludge wells where multiple states are disposing of the fracking fluids, some of those injection wells causing earthquakes.
And anyone who objects or even questions the practice of fracking are met with hostility from the Right Wingers.
funny thing is if these Righties start getting cancerous growths or start having babies with birth defects they'll be the first ones screaming and suing. And pretending they weren't warned.
.
Worse part is we're not allowed to know what's in those chemicals because of the clean water act. Those companies were exempted during Bush's presidency and that's when the fracking boom started. Now places that have NEVER had an earthquake are having earthquakes. I'm sure most of the representatives in congress on environmental issues are oil men like science are religious nuts. Should be a law against that.
">
Those GOP are the monster of GREED voter suppression is a classic example.
Just right wingers backing fracking? I sure thought I heard Obama tout his administration driving more natural gas production than ever before during the second debate. I also heard obama tout more drilling on federal lands than ever before? Natural gas production drops significantly without fracking. I would suggest that both the democrats and the republicans are within about 5% of having the same exact positions on natty gas and drilling. The only difference is in the innuendo being spun.
Worse part is we're not allowed to know what's in those chemicals because of the clean water act.
That is a major part of my objections to fracking.
There have been wells which produce good quality water for decades to generations, a fracking well goes in and coincidentally those water wells go sour.
Can't prove fracking turned the wells sour because "they" don't need tell what was in the fracking fluid. A pretty good guess can be made by analyzing the poisons in the water.
Heres another thing,
Those most supporting are those also those who are the most anti government programs and waste.
In PA or NY there were wells proven ruined by a frack operation, the fracking company were directed to install water handling equipment and provide those using these wells with water. Which the frackers did for a while.
Then a coure rules they don't need to assume responsibility for what wells they ruin so the frackers stop supplying water to the people whose wells they ruined.
Whose supplying the water now? The E.P.A.
Private profit with the risk and the cost of picking up the pieces being covered by the Taxpayer.
I wonder how the Right Wing comes to terms with this. ? Probably by refusing to acknowledge this situation exists (and many more times than just this instance).
.
Rob- good point about the right wing. How does the left wing do same?
EBrown I just came home from N.Dakota, worked out there for couple of Month's, Doing concrete work, and YOUR comment's are 100% true, I talked to alot of resident's out there and there is alot of concern about what you have stated. Along with that I did alot of work at various Coal Power plant's, and last week there was a good article about an additive that is being added to Coal to reduce alot of the bad thing's emmitted from the Coal, It was in the Bismark Herald. The plant using the additive is the Minnkota Plant.
"....America where are you now - don't you care about your sons & daughters
don't you know, we need you now - we can't fight alone against the monster...."
NEVER stop asking questions.
Why aren't the Canadians processing this oil themselves?
They could refine it themselves, sell us the end products, make it easier to transport it to the end users and to their own ports for export, and it would be much safer to pipe it cross the U.S..
Why don't the Canadians process and refine this oil themselves?
Because this "crude" is so poisonousness, and the residue from refining so toxic, the Canadians don't want the refining done in or the dregs anywhere near their country.
This was revealed in a podcast interview with a Canadian official. This official was asked why the Canadians didn't refine the oil and keep the money for themselves. I heard the officials bung snap shut. He really didn't want to answer but eventually did admit the Canadians are a bit more conscientious of the environmental impacts and hazards of this oil and they don't want this garbage processes, refined and the tailings of these operations anywhere near their country. It is that dangerous.
So the interviewer asks, with a snicker, about the people to the south more than willing to take this poison off the Canadians hands and deal with the poisons, The official said Yep.
So theres a nation to the south of Canada with many citizens fighting their own government for the privilege of poisoning themselves, their land and water, all because their leader, their President knows bringing this garbage oil into their country isn't the best of ideas, and the twit citizens to the south are so dumb that anything their President is against the citizen is for, and visa versa.
Just to be contrary.
Canada has been blessed with dummies to the south.
.
The current Canadian federal government is tea party light. Does that help explain it? The current Prime Minister also has a hate on for Central Canada (Ontario and Quebec) as we're seen as some liberal bastion which hasn't embraced the government's policies. The PM is a deeply flawed man. He's also an Albertan, one who once said he's like to build a wall around the province.
Eastern Canada has some unused refinery capacity. Not much as the pipeline that runs west to east was shut down years ago and the refineries it served were mothballed or razed. In-country refining could be done, but the current federal government prefers to sell oil at the world spot market price, unlike most nations with oil, and to serve the world before it's own citizens.
Keystone, ships to China regardless, through Texas or through the Pacific Northwest, the entire supply line is not for US consumption, at least the part going through to Houston.
Glad it's on safety check, can be called foreign relations economics, next Monday and the hold up for environmental reasons is under Red Nebraska's auspices, for damned good reasons.
I am confused why you would think US refiners would send it to china. By shipping it from the Gulf Coast it adds 5000 miles of shipping distance. Would you not think that anywhere else would be a better place to ship it from rather than the opposite side of where it has to be to get to China?
It is the most toxic, corrosive and most expensive "oil" to pump and refine. It takes massive amounts of water, which can't be recycled. It must be stored in concrete bunkers. The "North west" wants no part of this mess. They have no means of cleaning up any spills, as of yet. And yes, it is scheduled for China. Not the US.
The farmers and landowners may be republicans, but not the type we have iin congress at this very moment, trying very hard to just push mitt romney into the oval office and oon anyone else who is not in the 1% club. this is what romney wanted obama to explain in the last debate. obama will not do anything else that will hurt the people who are already hurting and have been hurting for years now, since reagan was in office. I truly hope that democrats, repubicans, independents or whatever, will go and vote for obama, because if you dont......if you think it was bad when obama came into office, you have seen nothing yet. look up and read in you computers "agreement that the republicans signed", then look up and read every thing on grover norquist. if you do this you will began to understand and see very clearly that what happened to our economy, you will see why our recovery is taking so long, and you will also see that if mitt romnry is elected, bain capital and a lot more just like his company, are planning to dystroy the america that we all know today. this plan, way of life, that they want in their hands will only be of benenifit to the elite one percent, who are the only ones with money and lots of it too. i read for 1 whole day and i still cant believe what it was that i was reading. but i do know that my children and grandchildren and also myself, do not want to live like its the 1800s, or like those poor chinese people do, or like i was a poor slave, because the people who have want to control and are controlling the direction of all of our lives. this is the @!$%# that u read in science fiction books. also cbs did an interview with grover norquist who is momneys boss. check it out, tell your fiends and then go vote for obama. 4 years he has had no help, now things are slowly coming out, and its only the tip.
rachel i have been trying to figure out what to do with this information. i wanted to know if you knew anything about it. im 52 never have i seen a man like romney run for president before and just not care about all his lies, or that anyone else hears his lies. he is on a mission and it wont be good for the united states, its people or the rest of the world. my name is angela daugherty, i live in los angeles,ca. and my email is aad1ram@yahoo.com. rachel maddow, investigate what i have said, and then contact me. share this with everyone that works the news shows on msnbc. i can not believe i am the only one to stumble across this information. that man must not make it into the whits house. thank you and all im asking from you is to read up on these things. everyday now its something new, another peice of the puzzle.
i read for 1 whole day and i still cant believe what it was that i was reading.
Angela, I really wish there was a million more people like you that would take the time to research things for themselves. Politicians, especially this current group, surrounding Romney are counting on people being ignorant.
Angela, although you don't want to live like the 1800's and nobody else does either - that's where we are going. In order to stop the planet from completely burning up (notice the droughts and the rise in food prices this summer) we really ought to swear off all coal, oil, and fracking natural gas. If we had planned ahead, we could have kept our way of life pretty well. But we just kept consuming more and more, and now it's a matter of survival.
Here's what I don't get. The Republicans got all huffy about the Kelo decision, which permitted a local government to condemn property for economic development purposes. But do you hear a peep from the Republicans (hello, George Will? Rush? Anyone?) about Americans having their property condemned so a FOREIGN company can send its oil to market? I mean, WHAT THE HELL? If I owned farmland that my great-great-great-grandparents had homesteaded in Texas, and I was told I had to sell it to Trans-Canada so they could build a pipeline, I'd get out the "DON'T TREAD ON ME" flag and expect the entire right-wing Tea Party Fox Nation to back me up. But I guess that I'd be trumped by the "Drill Baby Drill" plank in the Republican Party Platform.
Exactly. One rancher told me he was really surprised the other Republicans didn't support him in opposing the pipeline. He was an old-fashioned Republican I guess, the honest kind.
Not to worry. What's wrong with a bit of oil in the land and water? You can always grow linseed or palm kernel or soy right? All those oil loving plants that produce such lovely oil themselves ;) .
Bob- I assume you will be voting green party. You seem to be poking fun at the democrats and republicans.
As far as I know the democrats in general are not in favor of oil spills, hence the reason for putting the quash on this pipeline.
Tasr sand oil is the most toxic oil there is.
No one is in favor of oil spills. That's just a goofy thing to say. I would suggest republicans aren't in favor of oil spills either.
Tar sands oil, Larry? To my point to you and bob. Are tar sands oil allowed in USA? By Obama's energy policy? Well, yes... So Larry, Obama likes tar sands oil enough to allow it in. Do you have a witty reason why you wouldn't like them but Obama does?
I had a feeling someone might assume just because I didn't mention
repubs that they would think I said they were in favor of oil spills,
I didn't mention the Green Party the Libertarians the Fascists or
dozens of others but you don't seem to imply that I think they too
are in favor of oil spills. Of course not, especially when it
happens in your own backyard, or even if you didn't care about the
environmental damage there is the economic cost so yeah of course oil
spills are bad for everyone except those who get paid to clean them
up (and few oil loving bacteria). But please bear in mind my original
response was facetious and so was my reply to some extent and this is
a liberal blog so it is not too surprising if I poke a bit a fun at
repubs from time to time. So I'd suggest you stop taking it so
seriously and enjoy life a bit more.
On the serious side republicans are the ones who are always saying
"drill baby drill" and damn the consequences and so they do
need a bit of prodding now and then, and if the serious arguments
won't make them think maybe a barbed but humorous one will. You'd
think "conservatives" might also actually want to conserve
a bit of oil in case it might be needed by future generations for
things, like oh say the life saving plastics that have become so
vital to the medical industry (rubber was not nearly as good or
cheap, or so I've been told).
Yeah right (sarcasm alert) I'm sure Obama just loves tar sands,
went begging to Canada "please send us all your tar sands based
oil and gee I like it so much I'm authorizing a huge new pipeline
extension just so you can send it down to the gulf coast refineries
and then sell the refined product to the whole world". Remember
oil is fungible so all this argument about how these tar sands oils
are going to directly benefit the U.S. (oil price wise) is well
goofy, it won't make enough difference to the world market to
significantly effect prices. What would effect prices is if the
world, especially China, goes into a recession, so there you have
it...want cheap oil? cause a recession.
I will say I had hoped Obama might be a bit more environmentally
aware than he is but he's miles ahead of the conservative side
(barbed sarcastic comment alert) who seem to think since the second coming of
Christ is soon to happen we might as well destroy the planet for
profit...you'd think that they might start to have some doubts since
the seconding coming is now nearly 2000 years late, but no let's pave
paradise and put up a parking lot, sigh (end barbed sarcastic comment).
I just find it amusing when democrats imply that they are for clean energy, as if it differentiates the from republicans. And that, as you put it, Dems are against oil spills. Duh.
Then, Obama makes sure everyone knows he has allowed more drilling than anyone. And Obama tells us he has pushed the natural gas production. And people on here hate oil drilling and fracking- and hate republicans because... Well, they haven't connected the dots to what Obama says. Add California adopting cleaner fuel standards... Then waives them when they cause a price increase. Kind of akin to democrats asserting bush was a big deregulatory president, the Obama correctly pointing out that he, Obama, has added less regulation than bush.
I'm proud to live in CA with it's cleaner air standards even if I do
have to pay a bit more for my car. As for the high fuel prices of
recent notoriety the claims are it is to do with supply and demand
NOT clean air standards, please get your facts correct. Where I live the difference in price between winter and summer gas formulations is negligable as compared to the overall cost.
I'm glad you were amused, it was my intent to amuse with the original post...but
you still seem to missing the humor of the post, duh, and taking it as
personal insult, again I suggest you take life with a bit more of a
humorous attitude it helps. One of the few redeeming points of Arnold
S was his environmental aspects, so yes gosh there are republicans
who care a bit about the environment and I did say Obama was not as
good on the environment as he could be but compared to Romney and
most of the house and senate GOP members? No comparison.
Regulation does not mean anything in and of itself, fewer but
better regulations regarding the environment will trump lots of poor
regulations.
You seem to have entirely missed the orginal blog post here, you do know Obama stopped the pipeline extension right?
It is interesting that at this time there are 67 comments here and almost 300 in the religion post just above. I guess that might support your point a bit. People of both sides seem more interested in debating religion than the environment, oh well.
Bob- think for a moment of what you said, then reflect on reality. Let's see, California has high gas prices, according to you, that were not related to clean air summer formulations. They solved the price problem by waiving the need for said formulation 3 weeks early. Price problem solved.
I guess you don't live in CA. Gas in town is $4.30/gal which is where it's been for the past 5 months (give or take <5%). You don't know what you're saying.
Are you saying that California didn't relax it's summer fuel formulations 3 weeks early?
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/08/us/jerry-brown-moves-to-reduce-gas-prices-in-california.html?_r=0
I guess either you or the New York Times is lying. Now, I have no doubt the nyt is full of a lot of garbage, but since it was also reported on msnbc, CNN, abc, etc- I think maybe it is bobs who is fos.
Doesn't matter if it did or didn't where I live it did not effect the price in any significant way (the price flucuates up and down a bit but no big swings in many many months)...it was a symbolic act he had to be seen to do something and eliminating the gas tax (which also is only a small part of the cost) when CA is still in trouble would have had little effect except to make our roads and bridges fall apart sooner. You are assuming that just because something was done it effects things greatly, but it doesn't. The cost of the summer fule formulation has a negligible effect on gas prices when they are above $4.00/gal. If gas was .20/gal then yeah if the cost is fixed not a percentage then it would have a big effect, but I haven't seen prices that cheap since the gas wars in the early '70's.
I understand symbolism over substance. Kind of like railing about "to big to fail" while passing laws that make it difficult for smaller entities to comply. The "tbtf" situation is worse now than it was in 2008.
Let's simplify this. I want to transport the contents of my toilet to the next city. I therefore need to build a pipeline through your yard, you get a few bucks to set up the pipe in your yard. It must go over your pool, through your neighbors kitchen, through the baby's bedroom next door to that etc. Did I mention that I have hepatitis b? I get the money for the waste and the next city will send it to China. You get $6 for your pipe work. The pipes are made by the lowest bidder. The inspector works for the end user. In the rare event the pipe leaks, we will wait until the US sues us before beginning cleanup. what could go wrong?
Yap,yap,yap. Liberals complained about Bush raising the allowable level of Mecury contamination just because it was proven to be harmful to people-especially the unborn fetus that republicans care sooo much about. Then they yelled about rocket fuel contaminating the water,again a threat to those unborn fetuses. They yap about global warming,which will be a big obstacle for those unborn kids when they grow up. They keep complaining about coal pollution and the Nuclear waste and all those other things that big business needs in order to make a "killing",why?
Remember, corporations are people! So let us figure out how to put them in jail for manslaughter when their business causes lethal diseases or murder when they kill through negligence.
I sure would like to see the top executives that are hiding behind the corporate shield, go to jail for their decisions.
Paul, I support the death penalty for corporations. Many of them have earned it.
They need to shut down the entire project. For a project to be running into this much difficulty, the writing is on the wall. Drop the project, it's not worth destroying our water supply. The World and it's people can survive without oil, we cannot however survive without water. Think people think.
Angel #77, I remember sitting in a Paul Ryan listening session, Yes I live in his district here in WI, and when the subject of the Oil and the Pipeline came his response to the issue was pretty simple, there's enough OIL to solve our problem's, That is basically all he had to say. Not one word about any safety issue or anything!!
Every Time I read about this pipeline I think of not just what a bad idea it is but the false premise argument that running this thing down to the gulf of Mexico will have any effect at all on gas prices.
Keystone pipeline is also trying to get a northern gateway pipeline through BC in a very sensitive remote part of the province. A good percentage of BC is against the pipeline. Enbridge is trying to change minds but I don't think it will happen.
My guess is that the only reason they have "shut down the pipeline" is to try to prove to BC residents that they take actions regarding any "safety concerns". I don't think people in BC will fall for it...nor do I think Enbridge really took the time to study their opponents or how much power the First Nations in BC has.
TOTALLY DIFFERENT COMPANIES! Get your facts straight. In fact, they are bitter competitors. TransCanada = Keystone; Enbridge - Gateway.
Probably TRANSCANADA shut down for safety issues to convince the naive that they can be trusted. But they have a reputation (in the business) for sloppy work and for browbeating landowners. Do you know that landowners NEVER get protection for what will happen to the pipeline after it comes to the end of its useful life? Sooner or later it will break down, and any oil sitting in the valleys (e.g. under rivers) will be there - just like land mines after the war is over.
We need the Secretary of Explaining Stuff, Pres. Clinton, explaining to the American people just what "dilbit crude" is. I'd be willing to bet the vast majority think it's something like motor oil. I think people would show a great concern, if the people were allowed to know what chemicals are flowing through the pipelines.
Woe to the Sand Hills of Nebraska and the mid-west aquifer if this s#!+ gets loose.
Let's just dump a quart of this tar sand with chemicals on the hood and passenger seat of the supporters BMWs. Put another couple of gallons into your pool. See how easy it is to get out of the pool. If it does not eat through the clear coat or leather seats of your car and the fumes do not kill you, then come and talk to us about safety.
Within this issue we have a nearly perfect illustration of the difficult relationship between government and free enterprise. What would I do, if it were my decision to make, and I lived in a fantasy world where everything made sense?
I guess I would expect that the organization(s) making the proposition would have a spotless reputation in their industry. I would expect them to feel an obligation to tell the truth, and negotiate fairly, never purposely screwing someone because they can get away with it. I would expect the members of Congress to meet the same standards. Tell the people the truth, and don't screw anybody for your own benefit
I would expect a bi-partisan congress to draft a simple piece of legislation that provides a benefit to our country, while allowing the participants to make a reasonable profit. I would veto anything that provided an unreasonable benefit for one side or the other. I would stress the fact that the trust and confidence of the American people in their government would be partially restored by doing the right thing.
I would expect that the people bidding on, and performing the work, would take pride in what they are doing. I'd expect them to have a reputation for building pipelines that don't leak. I seriously doubt I would consider a company that has had recent problems due to neglegence, and then puts forth the minimum amount of effort to correct the problem only after being dragged into court.
I would expect that only American workers and products would be used for the project, supplied by companies that provide fair compensation and benefits for their workers, allowing them to play the desperately needed role of consumer, buying stuff, creating a need for more stuff, putting more people back to work.
I wsould expect those charged with the inspection and approval of the project would never even consider taking a bribe to look the other way, or allow anything they know compromises the overall quality, reliability, and safety of the project.
Finally, I would expect everyone to do exactly what they originally agreed to do, when they agreed to do it without a lot of whining or excuses. I would expect that this would become the new normal.
Too much to ask?
Here’s a little “thinking” for you to do... This pipeline is to be built right through (over) the Ogallala Aquifer, the largest groundwater supply in our country, one of the largest in the world.
Spills or accidents, which occur on pipelines frequently (ask the Kochs about the lawsuits for over 300 oil spills in just 5 years) that might happen would have you eating produce that would not only taste pretty bad, but cost more too.
Not to mention the toxins in it that would make you sick... who knows, they won’t tell anyone what’s thinning the oil so it will flow through the line.
As for “job-creation” on the pipeline, TransCanada admits that the crews actually laying it are going from one section and site to the next. Not as many new jobs as one is being led to believe, and those are minimum-wage manual labor.
More than half of the pipeline has, if you apparently don’t know, already been built, and tar sand pits are already decimating Canada’s plains (GoogleMap it..it’s easy).
But mostly the argument they use is that it will relieve pressure on our oil imports.
Most of all... You have to be a nut not to know almost all of this end product is going to end up going out of this country.
The Ogallala Aquifer isn't like a river that can eventually "clean" itself, like the Kalamazoo River eventually will. I read somewhere that at its fastest flow, it moves about 12 inches/day through silt, sand and clay. That means that if it gets contamination, the contamination stays there.
I have always wondered WHY, when Canada is building pipelines to British Columbia ports, it doesn't want to carry this "dilbit" in its own pipelines, or perhaps provide all those "jobs" for Canadians. Could it just be that they are smarter than us????