Latest Keystone XL news.

brianlux

BS44325 said:

This was today

http://m.thonline.com/mobile_new/news/breaking/article_fb191072-c373-11e4-9c86-9bc87b7364e4.html

Bummer! Yet another incident that exemplifies the need to do more to refurbish our rail system. We are not up to speed with that. Want to help? If in the west, look into join RailPac (or your regional organizations) :

http://www.railpac.org/

or NARP:

http://www.narprail.org/

But even that is putting the cart in front of the horse. This incident is yet another factor in why we need to cut our dependence on oil. It doesn't matter if your going to move 90 million barrels of oil per day worldwide by ship, rail, pipeline or truck oil, it's gonna spill. Not to mention what happens when worldwide, 3,570,000,000 gallons of oil are burned every day! Is that fucking insane or what?

And also, in any case, making these kinds of decisions sure as hell should be made using our brains.

Bennyorr4

BS44325 said:

brianlux said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

seems nobody remembers the BP spill in the gulf. imagine if that had happened on land.

Exactly!

It happens on land everytime a train carrying oil crashes. Put it in a pipe instead. It is an absolute no brainer. The BP oil spill was a problem because it was under water.

Another BP Gulf spill would never be possible because of automatic shut offs and built in sensors that are installed on pipelines, not to mention the countless regulatory bodies and technologies that are in place to ensure minimal contamination in the unlikely event of a spill. Secondly, the BP spill was located at the source which made it extremely difficult to stop. This would be impossible because the oil that would be shipped in the KXL pipeline is already in the ground, that's why its called oil SAND. They remove the sand and ship the oil in a controlled manner.

I'm not sure if you know it or not, but there are already thousands of miles of pipe in the ground. One more pipe which further secures North America's energy independence would not only create jobs but it would be better for the environment.

B.lux, I agree with your sentiment of looking elsewhere for renewable energy but I think your idealistic view of how the world should work is far off. While the pursuit of the utopia in which you seek would be great, it is far from realistic, at least today. It is good to discuss those ideals but we are at least 20-30 years away from the technologies you allude to. We need to secure our future by keeping North American energy in North America. I think you would agree that shipping oil overseas is far more detrimental to the environment as well . Stopping KXL only forces Canada's hand in making the choice to export to other countries like China that much easier. I fail to see how this is a good thing.

Bennyorr4

No hate. Where did that come from?



"it's now clearer than ever that the tar sands pose an incredible
risk to the health and safety of our families and a livable planet. As a
major study in Nature last month confirmed, a serious effort to control
global warming must keep the `dirtiest oil in the world' safely
underground".


That doesn't sound like Love to me. I would rather have sand in the oil I consume than the blood of our soldiers.

BTW the "dirty oil" label has been taken off the table by the European Union. Just more propaganda I guess. But its okay because they're not saying anything against the coal industry. I guess that is somehow cleaner energy? And don't get me started on fracking. The United States will be Swiss cheese in a few years. Sinkhole anyone? I hope you guys have headlamps, you're going to need 'em. SMH

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canadian-oilsands-avoid-dirty-oil-label-after-eu-vote-1.2876072

mickeyrat

Whats one more pipe IN YOUR COUNTRY. Going to a refinery that YOU BUILD.

brianlux

Bennyorr4 said:

No hate. Where did that come from?

"it's now clearer than ever that the tar sands pose an incredible
risk to the health and safety of our families and a livable planet. As a
major study in Nature last month confirmed, a serious effort to control
global warming must keep the `dirtiest oil in the world' safely
underground".


That doesn't sound like Love to me. I would rather have sand in the oil I consume than the blood of our soldiers.

BTW the "dirty oil" label has been taken off the table by the European Union. Just more propaganda I guess. But its okay because they're not saying anything against the coal industry. I guess that is somehow cleaner energy? And don't get me started on fracking. The United States will be Swiss cheese in a few years. Sinkhole anyone? I hope you guys have headlamps, you're going to need 'em. SMH

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canadian-oilsands-avoid-dirty-oil-label-after-eu-vote-1.2876072


Interesting that you imply my post is hateful yet I'm here to offer constructive ideas. Opposing the proliferation of the dirtiest oil in the world and working to find cleaner energy alternatives is absolutely about love- love of the planet that sustains us. And love of my godchildren, love for my step kids nieces, nephews, grand nieces and nephews, love for all the generations of kids that come after me and the hope that they will live in a world that will remain hospitable to them.

And thank you for acknowledging my idealistic out look in your other post. The thing is though, my idealism is merely a means to get as close to the ends as possible. It does not mean that I believe utopia is possible. You denigrate what I say by making such an assumption.

Where did you get the idea that I support fracking or shipping oil overseas?

backseatLover12

http://350.org/want-to-see-president-obama-talk-smack-on-keystone-xl-for-5-mins-heres-your-chance/

Does this sound like a President who wants to approve Keystone XL to you?

Seriously, check this out:

brianlux

backseatLover12 said:

http://350.org/want-to-see-president-obama-talk-smack-on-keystone-xl-for-5-mins-heres-your-chance/

Does this sound like a President who wants to approve Keystone XL to you?

Seriously, check this out:

He get's it. It puzzles me that not everyone understands these most basic, elemental concepts. Thank you, Mr. President.

PJfanwillneverleave1

It is interesting when he follows up his statement at 1:45.
He has vetoed it but not made a final determination.

brianlux

II noticed the same thing. That was not super reassuring. We shall see!

Bennyorr4

brianlux said:

backseatLover12 said:

http://350.org/want-to-see-president-obama-talk-smack-on-keystone-xl-for-5-mins-heres-your-chance/

Does this sound like a President who wants to approve Keystone XL to you?

Seriously, check this out:

He get's it. It puzzles me that not everyone understands these most basic, elemental concepts. Thank you, Mr. President.

What puzzles me is how the people against the pipeline don't have all of the facts by now. There is a lot of misinformation out there.This veto will have zero effect of minimizing GHG and climate change. The Alberta Oilfield is not a significant contributor to GHG and climate change. The oilsands are run mostly by American companies as well, (Devon Energy, EXXON/Imperial Oil, Cenovus, Conoco Phillips), so to say that it will only crate jobs for Canadians is false. A fair number of the workforce in Alberta's oilfield are American workers. There aren't enough jobs in the states and too many jobs in Canada for Canadians to fill them. Those companies are expanding with or without the KXL. Like I said, all this does is weaken the continent and delay the inevitable. The president is wrong about the oil being shipped to foreign markets from the gulf by way of KXL, his veto only ensures it. Most of Alberta oil will stay in the states WHEN the pipeline is finished (most don't know that is 40% complete BTW). There is only a section of proposed pipeline running between Alberta and Steele City left to build. Canada will just focus on building pipelines to the East and West coast instead until it is given the green light.

All in all, not a very smart move for a very smart man. I like president Obama, as I'm sure most Canadians do but this is a slap in the face to your closest ally, neighbour and trading partner.

As I've stated before, if he was really concerned with climate change then why doesn't he shut down the real polluters like the coal industry?

But that would mean pissing off a lot of, already pissed off Americans.

brianlux

Bennyorr4 said:

brianlux said:

backseatLover12 said:

http://350.org/want-to-see-president-obama-talk-smack-on-keystone-xl-for-5-mins-heres-your-chance/

Does this sound like a President who wants to approve Keystone XL to you?

Seriously, check this out:

He get's it. It puzzles me that not everyone understands these most basic, elemental concepts. Thank you, Mr. President.

What puzzles me is how the people against the pipeline don't have all of the facts by now. There is a lot of misinformation out there.This veto will have zero effect of minimizing GHG and climate change. The Alberta Oilfield is not a significant contributor to GHG and climate change. The oilsands are run mostly by American companies as well, (Devon Energy, EXXON/Imperial Oil, Cenovus, Conoco Phillips), so to say that it will only crate jobs for Canadians is false. A fair number of the workforce in Alberta's oilfield are American workers. There aren't enough jobs in the states and too many jobs in Canada for Canadians to fill them. Those companies are expanding with or without the KXL. Like I said, all this does is weaken the continent and delay the inevitable. The president is wrong about the oil being shipped to foreign markets from the gulf by way of KXL, his veto only ensures it. Most of Alberta oil will stay in the states WHEN the pipeline is finished (most don't know that is 40% complete BTW). There is only a section of proposed pipeline running between Alberta and Steele City left to build. Canada will just focus on building pipelines to the East and West coast instead until it is given the green light.

All in all, not a very smart move for a very smart man. I like president Obama, as I'm sure most Canadians do but this is a slap in the face to your closest ally, neighbour and trading partner.

As I've stated before, if he was really concerned with climate change then why doesn't he shut down the real polluters like the coal industry?

But that would mean pissing off a lot of, already pissed off Americans.

I agree, Bennyorr4, most of the coal plants have to go too. You seem to understand the significance of the impact of carbon in the atmosphere on the earth's climate and yet you tell me my "idealistic view of how the world should work is far off" and that "we are at least 20-30 years away from the technologies you allude to". I hate to be the one to say this, but in 20 or 30 years I will probably be dead (but the good news there is my carbon footprint will be miniscule!) and you who are younger (at least I assume you are, sorry if I'm wrong) will be the ones dealing with the harshest of the consequences of a changed climate. So you see, my "idealism" has little affect on my own benefit. I don't make these suggestions expecting my world to get better-- but maybe yours will. I'm always surprised when I hear younger people take a rather cavalier viewpoint of such dire matters. I guess the best I can say is good luck with all that and don't forget to floss.

mickeyrat

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/03/06/3630622/another-bakken-oil-train-derailment/

from the final paragraph of this article.....

Some see oil rail accidents as evidence that points to the need for more oil pipelines. Yet data from the U.S. Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) shows that oil trains may spill more frequently, yet pipelines spill more oil when they do spill. From 2004 to 2012, pipelines spilled three times the oil that oil trains did over the same period.


neither is ideal...

brianlux

mickeyrat said:

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/03/06/3630622/another-bakken-oil-train-derailment/

from the final paragraph of this article.....

Some see oil rail accidents as evidence that points to the need for more oil pipelines. Yet data from the U.S. Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) shows that oil trains may spill more frequently, yet pipelines spill more oil when they do spill. From 2004 to 2012, pipelines spilled three times the oil that oil trains did over the same period.


neither is ideal...

Having read similar to the bold above, I've wanted to point this out but couldn't find the data and I try not to make statements I cannot back. Besides which, the U.S. has been very lax in doing what could be done to revitalize our rail system to improve safety. And to do so makes perfectly good sense since rail is the most energy efficient way to move people and goods (and this I have provided backing evidence for a number of times).

And yes, Mickey, neither is ideal. Using less oil and thus moving less oil is closer to idea.

PJfanwillneverleave1

Who is this guy apologizing to exactly?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/t-boone-pickens-apologizes-to-canadians-for-keystone-1.2995915

brianlux

T. Boone Pickens: Haha! Mr. Wind Power! Mr. I'm Going to Reduce America's Dependence on Foreign Oil Via My Pickens Plan.

Oh, gee, somebody forgot to tell T. Boone that Canada is not part of the United States. Ooops. Haha!

But then, that oil was never slated to be consumed in U.S. markets anyway so, hey, no apology necessary, Booney!