While there may be a strong over-lap between the two sets of people, so what? Preventing the pipeline will do nothing to reduce CO2 emissions. It might even increase CO2 emissions as oil is diverted to less efficient Chinese refineries.

4/19/2012 12:30:03 AM

Nay.

4/19/2012 2:11:57 AM

No that Canadian crap is dirty and require huge CO2 emissions and hotel sized trucks just to extract the oil. Not to mention it aids the increase in burning fossil fuels. We need to be phasing oil out not building new infrastructure for it.

4/19/2012 7:37:53 AM

Short of military invasion, we have no way to prevent Canada from extracting their oil however they see fit.

That said, who is we? We are not building any new infrastructure. Some company of which you own no shares is building new infrastructure with their own money.

4/19/2012 8:22:39 AM

They should find another way to ship their oil to China.

4/19/2012 8:36:01 AM

But we don't wait it being refined in China, their refineries suck. U.S. refineries will produce the same fuel with lower emissions.

4/19/2012 9:35:23 AM

plus income in the US.

4/19/2012 11:33:46 AM

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't federal approval only required for the section of pipeline that crosses international borders?

Quote :

"The same people who want the keystone pipeline also don't "believe" in global warming."

Say whatever you like, but the majority of Americans either don't believe in global warming or don't care about global warming.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/153875/Worry-Water-Air-Pollution-Historical-Lows.aspx

4/19/2012 1:08:51 PM

Majority of Americans don't know what the greenhouse effect is so how could they possibly believe in global warming? If most Americans are scientifically illiterate then they cannot possibly form opinions based on valid scientific arguments. This is why Americans don't believe in evolution, global warming, stem cell research or anything else scientific. Americans don't know where fossil fuels come from, have no concept of the combustion reaction or law of conservation of mass. Americans don't know what the carbon cycle is or even the difference between weather and climate.

This pipeline will reduce oil prices which is exactly the opposite of what we want to be doing. High oil prices is what will ultimately get us off of oil and it is inevitable that they will go up in the long term. It is extremely short sighted to delay the inevitable and continue to artificially depress the price of oil.

4/19/2012 4:39:03 PM

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/environment/la-me-gs-keystone-xl-southern-leg-permitted-as-early-as-monday-20120622,0,4132623,full.story

Quote :

"Daniel says that concern for his family's welfare drove him to seek answers for what, exactly, would be running through the pipeline, at what pressure, and what he was supposed to do if it leaked on his property. What he found was 'sad,' he said... Daniel gave several examples of the circuitous logic that governs the pipeline permitting process. For instance, he was concerned after he learned that pipelines might not be designed for the extremely heavy tar sands oil, or 'bitumen,' which has to be diluted with other toxic chemicals in order to be able to move through the lines. There is no information available about this mix. In reading the environmental impact statement prepared for the now-withdrawn Keystone XL project, Daniel found that the State Department said it could not do an adequate chemical analysis on the oil running through the pipe because the elements that make up the mix are 'not disclosed by the shippers, as they are considered proprietary information by the shippers.'"

6/23/2012 4:15:06 PM

But but but....according the the all-knowing Lonesnark, companies regularly share their proprietary chemicals with government regulators...at least when it comes to fracking...

6/24/2012 9:18:09 PM

The State Department is neither the pertinent regulator (most states have a dedicated regulator for the transport of liquid chemicals and fuels) nor is he talking about fracking.

6/25/2012 10:10:23 AM

So it's totally cool for one industry dealing with environmentally destructive chemicals to be transparent (citation needed), yet another, similar, industry dealing with environmentally destructive chemicals, which is also exempted from the Clean Water Act, doesn't have to warn people about what may very well end up in their drinking water. Wonderful!

I'm beginning to get a picture of the Lonesnark hypercapitalist world. Basically, as an individual, you are only entitled to the information you can afford to obtain.

6/25/2012 2:55:26 PM

I am not versed in the relevant regulations on the liquid fuels transport industry, and I suspect neither are you. I would guess strongly that whatever state regulator is charged with regulating the pipeline industry in your state has a right to whatever information they feel like requesting. But it seems like a useless paperwork nightmare and a gross violation of their right to privacy to suggest extending that right to every citizen in the land.

The government exists to handle these issues while respecting the privacy of citizens. Just as you have a right to privacy, so do the owners of this corporation. If you ever have a real need to know what chemicals someone is using and the relevant regulator either doesn't know or doesn't exist, then go before a judge and get a court order. The police will make them tell you whatever you want to know. This is what the owners of corporations have to do when they want to violate your privacy (such as searching your house for a missing iPhone 4 prototype). So why isn't it only fair to make you jump through the same hoops?

[Edited on June 26, 2012 at 1:47 PM. Reason : .,.]

6/26/2012 1:45:25 PM

so what you're saying is: the general public shouldn't know what kind of chemicals are being pumped into the ground under their feet and around the water sources they drink?

i think it should be public knowledge. i'm not sure how you can argue that.

6/26/2012 2:00:11 PM

Quote :

"So why isn't it only fair to make you jump through the same hoops?"

because they're requesting permission to use private land....If someone came to your house and said i'll give you $x to use your land, but I'm not gonna tell you exatly what i'm gonna do, wouldn't that raise some red flags, especially if they had a history of mucking up other's property?

Fwiw, i'm fine with the pipeline, and fracking (i'd even be fine with the secrecy of the whole thing), provided these companies had unlimited liability for anything they screw up...Do that, and the whole thing would regulate itself.

6/26/2012 2:36:59 PM

Nationalize the oil companies.

6/26/2012 3:13:37 PM

that is sure to help, lol

6/26/2012 3:57:19 PM

^^^ You are wrong. While I agree limited liability is a government construct with no place in a capitalist system, it is not the case that sensible legislative regulation causes more harm than good. While not perfect, the regulations currently on the books are a happy medium balancing the interests of society for natural gas against societies interest in avoiding environmental damage.

Quote :

"so what you're saying is: the general public shouldn't know what kind of chemicals are being pumped into the ground under their feet and around the water sources they drink? i think it should be public knowledge. i'm not sure how you can argue that."

Again, it may be public knowledge, just not public knowledge the State Department is in a position to disclose. Perhaps they would have received actual disclosure if they had contacted the pertinent state regulator like I suggested.

That said, I'm not sure how you can argue whatever a company does or handles should automatically be public knowledge. I guess you think the contents of your bank account and attic should be public knowledge too. If so, then you are consistent. But the idea is that one enjoys privacy in-so-far as such privacy is not harming others. If they can convince a judge that you might be embezzling from your employer then they can violate your privacy to see your bank accounts. Meanwhile, if you can convince a judge that unknown chemicals are appearing in your water then you can get a court order to discover the chemicals the company is using and even internal documents which may show evidence of a leak and win you both damages and judicial orders to either cease using the chemicals or shut-down entirely.

6/26/2012 6:21:46 PM

Quote :

"contents of your bank account and attic"

The contents of my bank credit union account and attic aren't going to catch my drinking water on fucking fire! And this is by no means a happy medium of regulation, but rather how much oil and natural gas companies have managed to buy through means of lawmakers. Remove liability caps and remove fracking's exemption from the Clean Water Act and then we'll be on the path to a happy medium.

6/26/2012 7:22:34 PM

No, the Clean Water Act should be repealed and replaced with better legislation that wouldn't necessitate exempting certain industries.

Or, just repeal it entirely. State level environmental protection seems to work better in a structural sense. Having two regulators doubles the headaches but 90% of the time does nothing to protect the environment.

6/27/2012 9:37:10 AM

Quote :

"While not perfect, the regulations currently on the books are a happy medium balancing the interests of society for natural gas against societies interest in avoiding environmental damage."

not when they're not enforced. The agencies charged with the enforcement are so woefully understaffed that the laws are effectively neutered. In the end it comes down to landowners vs the companies...who has the upper hand in that situation?

6/27/2012 10:04:19 AM

Facts not in evidence. Which state are you talking about? And it doesn't take an army to police the relevant requirements for approved materials. This is where the bureaucracy comes in to process nothing but paperwork. The driller's trade association does a lot of the heavy lifting by determining for everyone which materials are approved for use in fracking. Then the manufacturers themselves can report that drillers are buying pipe and cement approved for use in fracking. All the regulators need to do is process the paperwork to see that drillers are buying approved materials and employing licensed supervisors. They don't need to set foot on the drill site.

As it was explained to me the difference between fracking the right way and doing it the wrong way today is a trivial amount of money, ten thousand dollars on a million dollar well. And when you do it wrong the well is very likely to become useless. So the regulations are not here to contain greedy drillers conspiring against the public. They are to produce a sufficient paper-trail to suppress error and stupidity.

6/27/2012 4:20:46 PM

link from the other fracking thread

http://openchannel.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/06/08/12106895-oil-boom-brings-wealth-and-waste-to-north-dakota

and illegal brine dumping is as much of a problem as anything

6/27/2012 4:30:48 PM

Quote :

"Mark Bohrer, who oversees spill reports for the Department of Mineral Resources, the agency that regulates drilling, said the number of spills is acceptable given the pace of drilling and that he sees little risk of long-term damage."

So how does that link disagree with what I said about fracking? Illegal and accidental surface dumping is not a fracking issue, it is a drilling issue. And I don't see what else could be done about illegal dumping. Every police officer in the state and much of the citizenry has been told to look out for trucks dumping on the side of the road. That just leaves accidental dumping, which only God could prevent.

6/27/2012 4:40:04 PM

disposal of the brine that's needed to conduct fracking operations is certainly a fracking issue...I don't see how you could argue otherwise with a straight face.

and there are multiple examples in that article of people reporting illegal dumping, with little or no consequences for the dumpers.

Ive said before, im all for fracking if it's done correctly, but if NC ramming it through the legislature is any indication, it won't be.

6/27/2012 5:13:08 PM

companies are not people and should not have privacy rights

6/29/2012 3:25:28 PM

Not according to the Republican presidential candidate, Willard R-money!

6/29/2012 3:42:13 PM

<people that work for companies or own companies> are not people and should not have privacy rights.

FTFY

6/29/2012 4:23:30 PM

Corporations are ideas, not people. Do ideas get privacy and voting rights?

6/29/2012 4:39:50 PM

Good point. I have some ideas on my laptop. Can the government come seize my laptop to get them? After-all, laptops don't have rights. Neither do ideas.

Well, the computers at GE have ideas on them. There is no question the computers are owned by human shareholders, just as my laptop is owned by me.

[Edited on June 29, 2012 at 8:42 PM. Reason : .,.]

6/29/2012 8:40:41 PM

Quote :

"<people that work for companies or own companies> are not people and should not have privacy rights. <companies that people work for or own> are not people."

FTFY

6/29/2012 9:19:19 PM

GE is not a citizen. Sal of Sal's pizza is. Multinational companies are not to be confused with single proprietorship.

6/30/2012 5:08:53 AM

Quote :

"<companies that people work for or own> are not people.""

So what? My laptop is not a person either. But I own it, just as the shareholders of GE own the computers at GE headquarters. As such, if the computers at GE headquarters can be seized without a court order then so can my laptop.

^ Sal, shareholder of GE, is a citizen.

[Edited on June 30, 2012 at 8:37 PM. Reason : ,.,]

6/30/2012 8:36:45 PM

I never thought LoneSnark would forget about property rights.

6/30/2012 8:42:21 PM

The biggest oil spill you've never heard of:
http://insideclimatenews.org/news/20120626/dilbit-diluted-bitumen-enbridge-kalamazoo-river-marshall-michigan-oil-spill-6b-pipeline-epa?page=show

The tldr; version:
http://grist.org/news/tar-sands-oil-spills-should-scare-the-crap-out-of-you/

The I'm not clicking on those links version:

-one of the first "tar-sands like" oil spills from a pipeline
-the stuff sank to the bottom, so traditional oil cleanup techniques didn't work
-Company didn't disclose what it was pumping for a week
-150 households permanently relocated
-Several hundred people reporting health problems
-$765 million spent on clean-up -- the most expensive pipeline spill in US history

7/2/2012 12:12:19 PM

Report Opens Way to Approval for Oil Pipeline

Quote :

"WASHINGTON — The State Department released a report on Friday concluding that the Keystone XL pipeline would not substantially worsen carbon pollution, leaving an opening for President Obama to approve the politically divisive project. The department’s long-awaited environmental impact statement appears to indicate that the project could pass the criteria Mr. Obama set forth in a speech last summer when he said he would approve the 1,700-mile pipeline if it would not “significantly exacerbate” the problem of greenhouse gas emissions. Although the pipeline would carry 830,000 barrels of oil a day from Canada to the Gulf Coast, the report appears to indicate that if it were not built, carbon-heavy oil would still be extracted at the same rate from pristine Alberta forest and transported to refineries by rail . The report sets up a difficult decision for Secretary of State John Kerry, who now must make a recommendation on the international project to Mr. Obama. Mr. Kerry, who hopes to make action on climate change a key part of his legacy, has never publicly offered his personal views on the pipeline. Aides said Mr. Kerry was preparing to “dive into” the 11-volume report and would give high priority to the issue of global warming in making the decision. His aides offered no timetable. “He’ll deliberate and take the time he needs,” said Kerri-Ann Jones, the assistant secretary of state for oceans and international affairs. Environmentalists said they were dismayed at some of the report’s conclusions and disputed its objectivity, but they also said it offered Mr. Obama reasons to reject the pipeline. They said they planned to intensify efforts to try to influence Mr. Kerry’s decision. For more than two years, environmentalists have protested the project and been arrested in demonstrations against it around the country. But many Republicans and oil industry executives, who support the pipeline because they say it creates jobs and increases supplies from a friendly source of oil, embraced the findings. The State Department is expected to shortly release the results of an inspector general’s investigation into the preparation of an earlier draft of the environmental impact report. The investigation was ordered after an environmental group obtained documents indicating that some consultants for the firm that wrote the draft report had previously done work for TransCanada, the company seeking to build the pipeline. If investigators determine a conflict of interest in the preparation of that draft, the State Department may have to conduct a new environmental review. In light of the investigation, environmentalists were particularly critical of the report released on Friday. “In what could be perceived as eagerness to please the oil industry and Canadian government, the State Department is issuing this report amidst an ongoing investigation into conflicts of interest, and lying, by its contractor,” said Erich Pica, the president of Friends of the Earth. Some environmentalists saw reason for optimism in the review, which models several possible future oil market possibilities. Most involve a future of high oil prices and robust demand, in which the oil sands crude is rapidly developed with or without the Keystone pipeline. However, the report offers one alternative sequence, in which oil prices and demand are low. In that case, not building the pipeline might slow development, and thus slow carbon emissions. That possibility is unlikely, but it could provide the administration something to point to should it deny the project. “We’re taking the inclusion of that scenario as good news,” said Susan Casey-Lefkowitz, director of international programs at the Natural Resources Defense Council. The oil industry applauded the review. “After five years and five environmental reviews, time and time again the Department of State analysis has shown that the pipeline is safe for the environment,” said Cindy Schild, the senior manager of refining and oil sands programs at the American Petroleum Institute, which lobbies for the oil industry. There are political and strategic advantages to approving the pipeline: It would strengthen relations with Canada and provide a conduit for oil from a friendly neighbor. If the pipeline is approved this year, it could also help the re-election campaigns of two vulnerable Democratic senators from oil-rich states — Mary L. Landrieu of Louisiana and Mark Begich of Alaska — while silencing critics who for years have urged the president to move ahead with the pipeline. Environmentalists said that if Mr. Obama were to approve the pipeline, it would destroy his efforts to make progress on climate change. Thomas F. Steyer, a California hedge fund billionaire and a major donor to Mr. Obama’s presidential campaigns, has started an advocacy group, NextGen Climate Action, that has spent heavily campaigning against the pipeline. Larry Schweiger, the president of the National Wildlife Federation, said: “This is a large source of carbon that’s going to be unleashed. We’re headed in a terribly wrong direction with this project, and I don’t see how that large increase in carbon is going to be offset.” Although the pipeline is a potent political symbol, its true impact on both the environment and the economy would be more limited than either its supporters or its opponents suggest. The new State Department report concludes that the process used for producing the oil — by extracting what are called tar sands or oil sands from the Alberta forest — creates about 17 percent more greenhouse gas emissions than traditional oil. But the report concludes that this heavily polluting oil will still be brought to market. Energy companies are already moving the oil out of Canada by rail. “At the end of the day, there’s a consensus among most energy experts that the oil will get shipped to market no matter what,” said Robert McNally, an energy consultant who was a senior energy and economic adviser to President George W. Bush. “It’s less important than I think it was perceived to be a year ago, both politically and on oil markets.” The new State Department analysis took into account the growing global demand for oil and the rapidly growing practice of moving oil by rail in areas where pipelines have not been built. “Given the anticipated outlook of oil prices and the cost of development, no single project will likely affect the rate of extraction,” said a senior State Department official, who asked not to be named under the ground rules imposed by the department. But moving oil by rail has its own hazards. As the practice has increased in recent years, so have incidents of explosions of rail cars carrying oil. Supporters of the pipeline say it will create jobs, though the number may be limited. A study by the Cornell Global Labor Institute concluded that the pipeline would create about 3,900 construction jobs over two years. Privately, people close to Mr. Obama say that although he is committed to building a climate legacy, he does not see the pipeline as a central part of that effort. Instead, the president is moving forward with a set of Environmental Protection Agency regulations on coal-fired power plants, the nation’s largest source of greenhouse gas emissions. Those regulations do not have the potent political symbolism of the pipeline, but could have a far greater impact on the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions by freezing construction of new coal plants and closing hundreds of existing ones. Ahead of making his decision, Mr. Kerry will take counsel from the leaders of eight other government agencies: the Departments of Defense, Justice, Interior, Commerce, Transportation, Energy and Homeland Security and the E.P.A. It is unclear when the decision might be made, but some close to the process say it could take as long as a year. Environmentalists are preparing to influence the next stages of the decision-making process. “This is the most scrutinized pipeline in the nation’s history,” said Brigham A. McCown, a former administrator of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. “The fact that it’s lasted as long as it has means one of two things. They’ve either done a very good, thorough job, or they’ve slowed it down due to political pressure.” Correction: January 31, 2014 An earlier version of this article misidentified the agency with which Susan Casey-Lefkowitz is affiliated. It is the Natural Resources Defense Council, not the Natural Resources Defense Center."

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/01/us/politics/report-may-ease-way-to-approval-of-keystone-pipeline.html?hp&_r=0
As the resident treehugger, this gets a big "meh". The Ogallala Aquifer has about 20 years left of existence even if this pipeline ran directly over it (which I don't think it would now). I would say that environmental groups are fighting the wrong fight here by tying this to Climate Change. Let Republicans run corrosive Alberta Tar Sands through their back yards and enjoy the eventual oil leak or burst pipe. Also, let them enjoy it when the company responsible simply declares bankruptcy and gives their executives golden parachutes while avoiding any responsibility a la Freedom Industries in West Virginia....

[Edited on February 1, 2014 at 9:19 AM. Reason : .]

2/1/2014 9:13:25 AM

My problem with this is that 49 CFR 190-199 is not up to date in regards to corrosive tar sands. If we do this, we need to update the regs and strengthen PHMSA.

(they need to be updated and strengthened anyways, also RCRA and TSCA, but we need to make this the catalyst to do it)

2/1/2014 9:49:08 AM

Chris Hayes would be a "nay."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/01/chris-hayes-obama-keystone_n_4709016.html

2/3/2014 1:49:32 AM

I don't think there's anyone that works for MSNBC that's for the pipeline, so that's not the least bit surprising.

2/5/2014 8:28:14 AM

Yay

2/5/2014 7:24:35 PM

Evidence that we definitely need a giant oil pipeline running across the country. If anything it will create tons of jobs to clean it up when it (eventually) spills.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/05/15/los-angeles-oil-spill/9114619/

how long until this is an obamadidit conspiracy?

[Edited on May 15, 2014 at 3:04 PM. Reason : thanks obama.]

5/15/2014 2:58:43 PM

Like the energy company that recently said how oil spills are actually beneficial?

If anyone thinks that spilling tar sands crude is like spilling the stuff from Saudi Arabia, then I pity you.

5/15/2014 3:17:45 PM

So apparently 62 senators don't know or care about what's currently going down North Dakota.

1/29/2015 5:37:25 PM

You can't really argue Obama has been anti-US oil either:
http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=MCRFPUS2&f=A

But I see Fox News going that direction...

1/29/2015 6:08:27 PM

Yeah, it's a pretty bad time to argue we need this pipeline for jobs (5.6%) or oil ($2/gallon). I think it will eventually be approved, but as part of a deal with Congress on another issue or bill.

1/29/2015 6:28:03 PM

Whether the feds approve it or not, it's not getting built unless you support seizing land from Americans and giving it to a foreign corporation.

1/29/2015 9:19:49 PM

any land required for this project will be more than fairly compensated for.

Oil prices are way too low right now to justify recovering oil from tar sands.

1/31/2015 2:09:07 PM

TransCanada has started eminent domain proceedings against dozens of land owners

2/1/2015 12:26:41 PM

Quote :

"any land required for this project will be more than fairly compensated for."

1.) That isn't true.
2.) Why should one be obligated to sell at any price?

The use of eminent domain in this case is absurd.

2/1/2015 4:40:57 PM