Keystone XL Updates

brianlux

I just got off the phone with CA Senator Feinstein's office and they are thrilled that the Keystone XL has been defeated in the Senate. This doesn't mean this is over- no way- but it's a big step in the right direction.

I want to reiterate to anyone here who does work related to the oil industry that I am never in favor of putting people out of work. I am convinced that moving toward alternatives to gas, coal and oil will create more jobs, not fewer, and I hope those opportunities do open up for any of you or your friends and family affected by the changes that are sure to take place in the years to come.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/102196581#.

gimmesometruth27

well what do ya know... the senate actually did something right for once. usually they do nothing, or the wrong thing.

brianlux

gimmesometruth27 said:

well what do ya know... the senate actually did something right for once. usually they do nothing, or the wrong thing.

For sure! Blows my happy little mind today! :-)

deadendp

I was so happy to read about it! Let's hope that it's a permanent no-go. It would be a very, very bad thing.

brianlux

The next step is to tell president Obama to say no to Keystone XL. The best way to do this is call the White House and voice your opinion:

202-456-1111

or write to the president

The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

Also, there are several website which have your basic one click voting or forms you can fill out to send a message like this one:

http://act.350.org/letter/obama-keystone-frontpage/

Let's move into the future with alternative energy (and the new jobs that will come with it) and get off our oil addiction!

gimmesometruth27

brianlux said:

The next step is to tell president Obama to say no to Keystone XL. The best way to do this is call the White House and voice your opinion:

202-456-1111

or write to the president

The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

Also, there are several website which have your basic one click voting or forms you can fill out to send a message like this one:

http://act.350.org/letter/obama-keystone-frontpage/

Let's move into the future with alternative energy (and the new jobs that will come with it) and get off our oil addiction!

he has said he will veto it. i believe him.

brianlux

^^^ Oh I hope so, gimme!"

What a day! I might have to have a drink and celebrate this evening!

Jason P

Hmm. Kudos to the democrats that couldn't be persuaded to pass it, although it will most likely cost them another senate seat in Louisiana next month. All for naught.

backseatLover12

CHEERS, Brian!

brianlux

backseatLover12 said:

CHEERS, Brian!

And you, bsL12!

rr165892

Bri,not to piss on your parade here,but what about the potential for greater percentage of domestic crude therefore helping with our dependency on foreign sources? And as mentioned the huge construction benefit and creation of many long term employment opps.
I am in no way an expert here so please educate me on why so many dems were so anti pipeline,when it's a step toward energy freedom not a blow to sustainable progress.
What is the big enviormental worry? It would seem this is a safer way to transport then say ship,truck or rail and should actually make accidents with other forms of transport less likely.Where am I miss enformed?

brianlux

rr165892 said:

Bri,not to piss on your parade here,but what about the potential for greater percentage of domestic crude therefore helping with our dependency on foreign sources? And as mentioned the huge construction benefit and creation of many long term employment opps.
I am in no way an expert here so please educate me on why so many dems were so anti pipeline,when it's a step toward energy freedom not a blow to sustainable progress.
What is the big enviormental worry? It would seem this is a safer way to transport then say ship,truck or rail and should actually make accidents with other forms of transport less likely.Where am I miss enformed?

rr, not feeling pissed on at all. Anything stance I or anyone else takes on an issue should be able to be backed up. So, good questions.

The oil that the proposes Keystone XL pipeline would carry is oil extracted from Canadian tar sands. There are several problems with the Keystone XL. The major problems with it, as I understand it are:

1) tar sand extraction is laying to waste vast amounts of beautiful wild and , often, North American Indian lands that are not going to be restored- no matter what the oil companies may have us believe- and,

2) Our continued world-wide use of petroleum is releasing carbon dioxide into the air which is driving the mean global temperature up at a fast pace and this climate change is going to have devastating effects on ours and other species ability to survive under these new conditions. Global warming is raising sea level, causing species to decline at an unnaturally fast rate, spreading infectious disease-such as dengue, malaria and cholera, thrive in warmer temperatures. Natural balances are being thrown off by this rapid climate change and we will have many difficulties adapting to those changes. Desperate and expensive measures to extract oil from the earth are being taken today because all the easy oil has already been extracted. This is consistent with what proponents (including some now retired big oil executives) have been saying about peak oil. Rather than use the time and money and energy to develop cleaner alternatives, Big Oil continues to make record amounts of money extracting oil and polluting the planet.

3) Keystone XL will not reduce our dependency on foreign oil. Most of this oil is not intended for domestic markets.

4) A pipeline as long as Keystone XL will leak. Yes, oil tankers leak as well but again, we need to be looking at clean alternatives, no creating new infrastructure that leaks yet more oil into our environment.

5) American Indian lands will be affected by the Keystone XL and these people (who have been screwed over since Europeans first land on this continent) have not given their approval for the pipeline- in fact, they resist it.

This may come as a surprise to some, but even FOX news has reported that the Kystone XL project is a bad idea. You can read that here:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/01/18/six-reasons-keystone-xl-was-bad-deal-all-along/

If I weren't buried in work this week, rr, I would cite many more references for you- you should not simply take what I say at my word. I'm a bookseller, not a scientist. SO yes, do be skeptical! Nothing wrong with that! But also, if this subject interests you, I would encourage you to look into research based on solid science what can be found at sites such as these:

http://www.realclimate.org/

http://www.ucsusa.org/

http://climate.nasa.gov/

rr165892

Compelling answer as always Brian.I will continue to look into this.Thx

rr165892

I was aware of the ground water issues.

deadendp

brianlux said:

rr165892 said:

Bri,not to piss on your parade here,but what about the potential for greater percentage of domestic crude therefore helping with our dependency on foreign sources? And as mentioned the huge construction benefit and creation of many long term employment opps.
I am in no way an expert here so please educate me on why so many dems were so anti pipeline,when it's a step toward energy freedom not a blow to sustainable progress.
What is the big enviormental worry? It would seem this is a safer way to transport then say ship,truck or rail and should actually make accidents with other forms of transport less likely.Where am I miss enformed?

rr, not feeling pissed on at all. Anything stance I or anyone else takes on an issue should be able to be backed up. So, good questions.

The oil that the proposes Keystone XL pipeline would carry is oil extracted from Canadian tar sands. There are several problems with the Keystone XL. The major problems with it, as I understand it are:

1) tar sand extraction is laying to waste vast amounts of beautiful wild and , often, North American Indian lands that are not going to be restored- no matter what the oil companies may have us believe- and,

2) Our continued world-wide use of petroleum is releasing carbon dioxide into the air which is driving the mean global temperature up at a fast pace and this climate change is going to have devastating effects on ours and other species ability to survive under these new conditions. Global warming is raising sea level, causing species to decline at an unnaturally fast rate, spreading infectious disease-such as dengue, malaria and cholera, thrive in warmer temperatures. Natural balances are being thrown off by this rapid climate change and we will have many difficulties adapting to those changes. Desperate and expensive measures to extract oil from the earth are being taken today because all the easy oil has already been extracted. This is consistent with what proponents (including some now retired big oil executives) have been saying about peak oil. Rather than use the time and money and energy to develop cleaner alternatives, Big Oil continues to make record amounts of money extracting oil and polluting the planet.

3) Keystone XL will not reduce our dependency on foreign oil. Most of this oil is not intended for domestic markets.

4) A pipeline as long as Keystone XL will leak. Yes, oil tankers leak as well but again, we need to be looking at clean alternatives, no creating new infrastructure that leaks yet more oil into our environment.

5) American Indian lands will be affected by the Keystone XL and these people (who have been screwed over since Europeans first land on this continent) have not given their approval for the pipeline- in fact, they resist it.

This may come as a surprise to some, but even FOX news has reported that the Kystone XL project is a bad idea. You can read that here:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/01/18/six-reasons-keystone-xl-was-bad-deal-all-along/

If I weren't buried in work this week, rr, I would cite many more references for you- you should not simply take what I say at my word. I'm a bookseller, not a scientist. SO yes, do be skeptical! Nothing wrong with that! But also, if this subject interests you, I would encourage you to look into research based on solid science what can be found at sites such as these:

http://www.realclimate.org/

http://www.ucsusa.org/

http://climate.nasa.gov/

Thanks, Brian. It's been quite a while since I've done some major reading on Keystone, but I do know that there health issues in Canada with similar projects and that Keystone (as memory serves) would put aquifer(s) in danger of being polluted. There were plans (again, my reading is dated, so correct me if I'm wrong) where yes, they were going through reservations and planning to plow over structures and whatnot with no regard to cultural significance . . .

It's bad all around. Thank you for being kind enough to share the information on here.

Last-12-Exit

I just don't see how how the alternatives will not only replace the jobs lost in the oil, coal, and gas industries, but add more.

Let's say a coal fired power plant that produces 2400 megawatts and employs 350 workers is shut down because a wind farm is being built and the EPA and federal government imposes stricter regulations for carbon emissions. The intial construction of the farm could boost the number of jobs but once the farm is built and operational, how many jobs would actually be created? I have no idea what kind of manpower it would take to run a wind farm, my guess that it isn't close to 350.

I base that on a very large wind farm that is located on the Ohio side of the Ohio/Indiana border off US-30. There are 210 large wind turbines with no facilities that can be seen from the highway. There would have to be a certain number of maintenance personnel and linemen. But it doesn't look like 350 to me. The article cited below reports that once that farm is completed, a whopping 15-20 permanent jobs will be created.

Plus, those 210 wind turbines (cost about $2million each) only produce enough to power about 500 typical Ohio homes. I don't know the total megawatts. To put that into prospective, Ohio has plans to build another 571 turbines that will only produce about 1100 megawatts.

So how could these alternatives create enough jobs to cover the jobs lost when these plants close down? And how could they keep up with the demand for power lost at a cost effective price?

The information about the wind farm in Ohio came from this website:
http://www.ohio.com/news/local/wind-turbines-rise-above-flatlands-of-western-ohio-1.239271

I know the thread is about the keystone pipeline, but Brian mentioned in the first post that alternatives would create more jobs.

brianlux

Last-12-Exit said:

I just don't see how how the alternatives will not only replace the jobs lost in the oil, coal, and gas industries, but add more.

Let's say a coal fired power plant that produces 2400 megawatts and employs 350 workers is shut down because a wind farm is being built and the EPA and federal government imposes stricter regulations for carbon emissions. The intial construction of the farm could boost the number of jobs but once the farm is built and operational, how many jobs would actually be created? I have no idea what kind of manpower it would take to run a wind farm, my guess that it isn't close to 350.

I base that on a very large wind farm that is located on the Ohio side of the Ohio/Indiana border off US-30. There are 210 large wind turbines with no facilities that can be seen from the highway. There would have to be a certain number of maintenance personnel and linemen. But it doesn't look like 350 to me. The article cited below reports that once that farm is completed, a whopping 15-20 permanent jobs will be created.

Plus, those 210 wind turbines (cost about $2million each) only produce enough to power about 500 typical Ohio homes. I don't know the total megawatts. To put that into prospective, Ohio has plans to build another 571 turbines that will only produce about 1100 megawatts.

So how could these alternatives create enough jobs to cover the jobs lost when these plants close down? And how could they keep up with the demand for power lost at a cost effective price?

The information about the wind farm in Ohio came from this website:
http://www.ohio.com/news/local/wind-turbines-rise-above-flatlands-of-western-ohio-1.239271

I know the thread is about the keystone pipeline, but Brian mentioned in the first post that alternatives would create more jobs.

Another good question- thanks, Last Exit 12.

Here's what the Union of Concerned Scientists have to say on jobs created by renewable energy:

Jobs and Other Economic Benefits

Compared with fossil fuel technologies, which are typically mechanized and capital intensive, the renewable energy industry is more labor-intensive. This means that, on average, more jobs are created for each unit of electricity generated from renewable sources than from fossil fuels.

Renewable energy already supports thousands of jobs in the United States. For example, in 2011, the wind energy industry directly employed 75,000 full-time-equivalent employees in a variety of capacities, including manufacturing, project development, construction and turbine installation, operations and maintenance, transportation and logistics, and financial, legal, and consulting services [10]. More than 500 factories in the United States manufacture parts for wind turbines, and the amount of domestically manufactured equipment used in wind turbines has grown dramatically in recent years: from 35 percent in 2006 to 70 percent in 2011 [11, 12].

Other renewable energy technologies employ even more workers. In 2011, the solar industry employed approximately 100,000 people on a part-time or full-time basis, including jobs in solar installation, manufacturing, and sales [13]; the hydroelectric power industry employed approximately 250,000 people in 2009 [14]; and in 2010 the geothermal industry employed 5,200 people [15].

Increasing renewable energy has the potential to create still more jobs. In 2009, the Union of Concerned Scientists conducted an analysis of the economic benefits of a 25 percent renewable energy standard by 2025; it found that such a policy would create more than three times as many jobs as producing an equivalent amount of electricity from fossil fuels—resulting in a benefit of 202,000 new jobs in 2025 [16].

In addition to the jobs directly created in the renewable energy industry, growth in renewable energy industry creates positive economic “ripple” effects. For example, industries in the renewable energy supply chain will benefit, and unrelated local businesses will benefit from increased household and business incomes [17].

In addition to creating new jobs, increasing our use of renewable energy offers other important economic development benefits. Local governments collect property and income taxes and other payments from renewable energy project owners. These revenues can help support vital public services, especially in rural communities where projects are often located. Owners of the land on which wind projects are built also often receive lease payments ranging from $3,000 to $6,000 per megawatt of installed capacity, as well as payments for power line easements and road rights-of-way. Or they may earn royalties based on the project’s annual revenues. Similarly, farmers and rural landowners can generate new sources of supplemental income by producing feedstocks for biomass power facilities.

UCS analysis found that a 25 by 2025 national renewable electricity standard would stimulate $263.4 billion in new capital investment for renewable energy technologies, $13.5 billion in new landowner income biomass production and/or wind land lease payments, and $11.5 billion in new property tax revenue for local communities [18].

Renewable energy projects therefore keep money circulating within the local economy, and in most states renewable electricity production would reduce the need to spend money on importing coal and natural gas from other places. Thirty-eight states were net importers of coal in 2008—from other states and, increasingly, other countries: 16 states spent a total of more than $1.8 billion on coal from as far away as Colombia, Venezuela, and Indonesia, and 11 states spent more than $1 billion each on net coal imports [19]

[16] UCS. 2009. Clean Power Green Jobs.

[17] Environmental Protection Agency. 2010. Assessing the Multiple Benefits of Clean Energy: A Resource for States. Chapter 5.

[18] UCS. 2009. Clean Power Green Jobs.

[19] Deyette, J., and B. Freese. 2010. Burning coal, burning cash: Ranking the states that import the most coal. Cambridge, MA: Union of Concerned Scientists.

http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/our-energy-choices/renewable-energy/public-benefits-of-renewable.html#bf-toc-3

Sorry for the lame copy-and-paste answer. I really am slammed this week.

I've been following UCSUSA.org for years and they seem like a good, reliable, responsible, non-partisan source of scientific information. Everything I've read that they've published sounds reliable to me.

Last-12-Exit

Any way to edit it from italics? :-B

I wonder how many of those 75,000 full time jobs are the VP level management of the corporations that are funding these projects. And no, I did not dig deeper to see the breakdown because I'm tired. But I think that number is inflated. It's using the entire renewable energy industry as a whole. Maybe tomorrow I will dig deeper to break it down.

But just using the example I cited in Ohio. 20 New jobs created from such an expensive and expansive project. Yes it's a small scale compared to Brian's example, but that's my point. Using renewable energy is less cost effective. But used in conjunction with sources already in place, can be an effective way to supplement supply when demand increases.

Somehow I've drifted. I'm tired and my eyes hurt from reading the italics. Lol.

brianlux

Last-12-Exit said:

Any way to edit it from italics? :-B

Sorry! Here ya go:

Jobs and Other Economic Benefits

Compared with fossil fuel technologies, which are typically mechanized and capital intensive, the renewable energy industry is more labor-intensive. This means that, on average, more jobs are created for each unit of electricity generated from renewable sources than from fossil fuels.

Renewable energy already supports thousands of jobs in the United States. For example, in 2011, the wind energy industry directly employed 75,000 full-time-equivalent employees in a variety of capacities, including manufacturing, project development, construction and turbine installation, operations and maintenance, transportation and logistics, and financial, legal, and consulting services [10]. More than 500 factories in the United States manufacture parts for wind turbines, and the amount of domestically manufactured equipment used in wind turbines has grown dramatically in recent years: from 35 percent in 2006 to 70 percent in 2011 [11, 12].

Other renewable energy technologies employ even more workers. In 2011, the solar industry employed approximately 100,000 people on a part-time or full-time basis, including jobs in solar installation, manufacturing, and sales [13]; the hydroelectric power industry employed approximately 250,000 people in 2009 [14]; and in 2010 the geothermal industry employed 5,200 people [15].

Increasing renewable energy has the potential to create still more jobs. In 2009, the Union of Concerned Scientists conducted an analysis of the economic benefits of a 25 percent renewable energy standard by 2025; it found that such a policy would create more than three times as many jobs as producing an equivalent amount of electricity from fossil fuels—resulting in a benefit of 202,000 new jobs in 2025 [16].

In addition to the jobs directly created in the renewable energy industry, growth in renewable energy industry creates positive economic “ripple” effects. For example, industries in the renewable energy supply chain will benefit, and unrelated local businesses will benefit from increased household and business incomes [17].

In addition to creating new jobs, increasing our use of renewable energy offers other important economic development benefits. Local governments collect property and income taxes and other payments from renewable energy project owners. These revenues can help support vital public services, especially in rural communities where projects are often located. Owners of the land on which wind projects are built also often receive lease payments ranging from $3,000 to $6,000 per megawatt of installed capacity, as well as payments for power line easements and road rights-of-way. Or they may earn royalties based on the project’s annual revenues. Similarly, farmers and rural landowners can generate new sources of supplemental income by producing feedstocks for biomass power facilities.

UCS analysis found that a 25 by 2025 national renewable electricity standard would stimulate $263.4 billion in new capital investment for renewable energy technologies, $13.5 billion in new landowner income biomass production and/or wind land lease payments, and $11.5 billion in new property tax revenue for local communities [18].

Renewable energy projects therefore keep money circulating within the local economy, and in most states renewable electricity production would reduce the need to spend money on importing coal and natural gas from other places. Thirty-eight states were net importers of coal in 2008—from other states and, increasingly, other countries: 16 states spent a total of more than $1.8 billion on coal from as far away as Colombia, Venezuela, and Indonesia, and 11 states spent more than $1 billion each on net coal imports [19]

[16] UCS. 2009. Clean Power Green Jobs.

[17] Environmental Protection Agency. 2010. Assessing the Multiple Benefits of Clean Energy: A Resource for States. Chapter 5.

[18] UCS. 2009. Clean Power Green Jobs.

[19] Deyette, J., and B. Freese. 2010. Burning coal, burning cash: Ranking the states that import the most coal. Cambridge, MA: Union of Concerned Scientists.

gimmesometruth27

none of this oil is for our consumption. this oil is going on the international market and will ship globally from american ports. canadian oil companies will make billions, we will get nothing. we will assume all the risk of something happens and oil floods our own lands. the jobs will be construction jobs. what happens to them once it is built?

then there is this. the united states is now one of the top oil producing countries in the world. why else do you think gas has been so cheep?

this pipeline is a bad idea.

gimmesometruth27

Jason P said:

Hmm. Kudos to the democrats that couldn't be persuaded to pass it, although it will most likely cost them another senate seat in Louisiana next month. All for naught.

mary landrieu was a worthless democrat anyway. no spine. ran away from the president's accomplishments which helped people of her state. i am glad she is going to lose.