PDA

View Full Version : Obama kills keystone pipeline project



tsjct
01-18-2012, 12:45 PM
WOW!! He wanted shovel ready projects and he just KILLED the biggest one. I am in the OIL/GAS business and i find this crazy. Higher oil prices helps my company so i guess i should be happy but i just can not find anything on this decision to be happy about. What are your thoughts on this?

habsheaven
01-18-2012, 12:57 PM
Do you have a link? Last I heard, a few weeks ago, was that the decision to proceed or not was being put off until after the election. Which I do not agree with, btw. Has there been something new saying it was canceled altogether?

tsjct
01-18-2012, 01:00 PM
Do you have a link? Last I heard, a few weeks ago, was that the decision to proceed or not was being put off until after the election. Which I do not agree with, btw. Has there been something new saying it was canceled altogether?

Just announced for 3PM CST press conference. Canada has come out and said it would take 3 more years to get a new permit and they will not do it again. Canada will now sell somewhere else.

habsheaven
01-18-2012, 01:03 PM
Just announced for 3PM CST press conference. Canada has come out and said it would take 3 more years to get a new permit and they will not do it again. Canada will now sell somewhere else.

Oh, okay. Yeah, there are plans to pipe it over the Rockies to a port facility (that will need to be built) on the BC coast, and then sell it to Asia. Works for me.

tsjct
01-18-2012, 01:12 PM
Oh, okay. Yeah, there are plans to pipe it over the Rockies to a port facility (that will need to be built) on the BC coast, and then sell it to Asia. Works for me.

Its just a shame as it KILLED a ton of jobs here in the US.

wogman56
01-18-2012, 02:44 PM
As a Valero employee, words cannot express my disgust in Obama for killing this down. It's not like he was getting my vote anyway, but that definitely cements it.

MadMan1978
01-18-2012, 02:47 PM
WOW!! He wanted shovel ready projects and he just KILLED the biggest one. I am in the OIL/GAS business and i find this crazy. Higher oil prices helps my company so i guess i should be happy but i just can not find anything on this decision to be happy about. What are your thoughts on this?
So you support ...Ok prove to me where this whole project will be about all you say...and have solid proof...

Star_Cards
01-18-2012, 03:13 PM
I've been reading about this as I haven't heard of this until today. From what I found the project was rejected due to the route of the pipeline. I know some people will see jobs as way more important than any environmental impacts this pipeline may bring up. Apparently the proposed path of the pipeline would run across the Ogallala Aquifer, which is an enormous underground lake that extends from south dakota to texas and supplies water for millions of people and irrigates to 20% of America's agriculture. While this would bring a large amount of jobs (read that 100,000 were estimated) I think you need to also think about what an impact any sort of leaks would have on the areas where the pipeline travels. However, it seems like if the environmental concerns are valid, they'd be able to redirect the pipeline. Seems likes Obama is completely for the project but wants a better route for it. At least that's the sense I got when reading multiple articles about this.

This, of course, reminds of me of the Alaskan Pipeline. I wasn't alive during the building of that but there were a lot of measures that they needed to address to have a minimal amount of environmental impact. I know that "green" is seen as a negative thing from some people, but I don't think you can underestimate the impacts that something like this could potentially have on an area.

From what I read, Nebraska is almost completely above the Ogallala Aquifer and rather dependent on this water source so it seems reasonable that they may have a concern about a pipeline for oil in this area.

by the way, I couldn't find out for sure... is this proposed to be buried or above ground? I'm assuming buried?

Also found this quote from here. Keystone-Pipeline (http://greenliving.about.com/od/scienceandtechnology/a/Keystone-Pipeline.htm)


The State Department has found that the existing Keystone pipeline has already failed 14 times since it began operations in 2010 -- one of those leaks dumped 21,000 gallons of crude oil -- and the new Keystone XL pipeline could be reasonably expected to fail about two times a year each year of operation.

to me that's a valid concern to have when finalizing a path across the United States.

MadMan1978
01-18-2012, 04:12 PM
Its all over the NEWS on every channel. Turn on your TV and watch it.
Firs never speak with a condescending tone with me. I wont with you I ask the same from you...

Second I ask you to provide facts of why this choice is wrong...


I myself do not think you statements are true and are unfounded. I also think if he pick a differnt type of beer then what you would drink...would have issue with it...

I myself am on the fence with whole project.

to StarCards where be you get the number of 100,000 jobs?

tsjct
01-18-2012, 04:13 PM
I've been reading about this as I haven't heard of this until today. From what I found the project was rejected due to the route of the pipeline. I know some people will see jobs as way more important than any environmental impacts this pipeline may bring up. Apparently the proposed path of the pipeline would run across the Ogallala Aquifer, which is an enormous underground lake that extends from south dakota to texas and supplies water for millions of people and irrigates to 20% of America's agriculture. While this would bring a large amount of jobs (read that 100,000 were estimated) I think you need to also think about what an impact any sort of leaks would have on the areas where the pipeline travels. However, it seems like if the environmental concerns are valid, they'd be able to redirect the pipeline. Seems likes Obama is completely for the project but wants a better route for it. At least that's the sense I got when reading multiple articles about this.

This, of course, reminds of me of the Alaskan Pipeline. I wasn't alive during the building of that but there were a lot of measures that they needed to address to have a minimal amount of environmental impact. I know that "green" is seen as a negative thing from some people, but I don't think you can underestimate the impacts that something like this could potentially have on an area.

From what I read, Nebraska is almost completely above the Ogallala Aquifer and rather dependent on this water source so it seems reasonable that they may have a concern about a pipeline for oil in this area.

by the way, I couldn't find out for sure... is this proposed to be buried or above ground? I'm assuming buried?

Also found this quote from here. Keystone-Pipeline (http://greenliving.about.com/od/scienceandtechnology/a/Keystone-Pipeline.htm)



to me that's a valid concern to have when finalizing a path across the United States.

Yeah the more i think about it i am HAPPY the EPA won this battle. Oil should remain around $100 or above which will only increase my companies profit for 2012. Have to look at that way also. Go EPA!!

MadMan1978
01-18-2012, 04:29 PM
The reports I have read that only 20,000 jobs would be create, that is from the company who applied for the permit. The pipeline would only bring 700K barrels of oil is I am correct? Are those number right?

pspstatus
01-18-2012, 05:10 PM
Yeah the more i think about it i am HAPPY the EPA won this battle. Oil should remain around $100 or above which will only increase my companies profit for 2012. Have to look at that way also. Go EPA!!


That's all the oil and gas companies care about anyway isn't it? Profits? Even though you say this in jest I'm very excited to hear this news.

AUTaxMan
01-18-2012, 05:31 PM
The reports I have read that only 20,000 jobs would be create, that is from the company who applied for the permit. The pipeline would only bring 700K barrels of oil is I am correct? Are those number right?

700K bbl/day is not an insubstantial number. The 20K jobs is probably close to accurate.

AUTaxMan
01-18-2012, 05:34 PM
I've been reading about this as I haven't heard of this until today. From what I found the project was rejected due to the route of the pipeline. I know some people will see jobs as way more important than any environmental impacts this pipeline may bring up. Apparently the proposed path of the pipeline would run across the Ogallala Aquifer, which is an enormous underground lake that extends from south dakota to texas and supplies water for millions of people and irrigates to 20% of America's agriculture. While this would bring a large amount of jobs (read that 100,000 were estimated) I think you need to also think about what an impact any sort of leaks would have on the areas where the pipeline travels. However, it seems like if the environmental concerns are valid, they'd be able to redirect the pipeline. Seems likes Obama is completely for the project but wants a better route for it. At least that's the sense I got when reading multiple articles about this.

This, of course, reminds of me of the Alaskan Pipeline. I wasn't alive during the building of that but there were a lot of measures that they needed to address to have a minimal amount of environmental impact. I know that "green" is seen as a negative thing from some people, but I don't think you can underestimate the impacts that something like this could potentially have on an area.

From what I read, Nebraska is almost completely above the Ogallala Aquifer and rather dependent on this water source so it seems reasonable that they may have a concern about a pipeline for oil in this area.

by the way, I couldn't find out for sure... is this proposed to be buried or above ground? I'm assuming buried?

Also found this quote from here. Keystone-Pipeline (http://greenliving.about.com/od/scienceandtechnology/a/Keystone-Pipeline.htm)



to me that's a valid concern to have when finalizing a path across the United States.

In November, TransCanada reached an agreement with the state of Nebraska on an adjustment to the pipeline route that would detour around the Sand Hills region, negating any legitimate environmental argument related to the aquifer.

MadMan1978
01-18-2012, 05:35 PM
700K bbl/day is not an insubstantial number. The 20K jobs is probably close to accurate.
However 700k a day to the 22 MILLION of demand? I honestly do not see a huge impact on prices in the long run
and the reports on several news stations was from 2500 to 4500 real jobs...
the 20,000 was the number the the company posted on their web site

As I said I am on the fence with this

AUTaxMan
01-18-2012, 05:47 PM
However 700k a day to the 22 MILLION of demand? I honestly do not see a huge impact on prices in the long run
and the reports on several news stations was from 2500 to 4500 real jobs...
the 20,000 was the number the the company posted on their web site

As I said I am on the fence with this

The question to be asked is what legitimate reason is there for denying the permit, especially if the states agree with the route? There will always be risk when transporting oil.

wogman56
01-18-2012, 06:02 PM
The 20,000 jobs they get from that are calculated as such: 10,000 temporary construction jobs, 2500-4500 full time jobs once it is opened up, plus roughly 8,000 manufacturing and transportation jobs that they are claiming credit for creating.

tylermckinzie
01-18-2012, 07:48 PM
As I follow this story, I have a question.

Why does this pipeline need to travel from Canada to Texas?

Maybe I miss something here, but if the goal is to produce for the United States, why not build a stinkin refinery in North Dakota? Why does the crude have to travel all the way across environmental concerns?

Unless of course your reasoning follows mine and assumes part of the goal is to start shipping some of this oil to South America, which can purchase from us cheaper than shipping from Middle Eastern countries? Are we trying to supplement our purchasing, or leave it alone and supplement our exports?

If this is truly about avoiding enviromental problems, creating jobs, and producing oil closer to home and from more friendly countries.... why can't the refinery be closer to the source?

Just wondering other's thoughts.....

Star_Cards
01-19-2012, 09:05 AM
In November, TransCanada reached an agreement with the state of Nebraska on an adjustment to the pipeline route that would detour around the Sand Hills region, negating any legitimate environmental argument related to the aquifer.

interesting. all of the stuff I read was that some states still had issue with the route and that seemed to be the main reason why it was rejected in hopes of having a new route proposed.

Star_Cards
01-19-2012, 09:08 AM
As I follow this story, I have a question.

Why does this pipeline need to travel from Canada to Texas?

Maybe I miss something here, but if the goal is to produce for the United States, why not build a stinkin refinery in North Dakota? Why does the crude have to travel all the way across environmental concerns?

Unless of course your reasoning follows mine and assumes part of the goal is to start shipping some of this oil to South America, which can purchase from us cheaper than shipping from Middle Eastern countries? Are we trying to supplement our purchasing, or leave it alone and supplement our exports?

If this is truly about avoiding enviromental problems, creating jobs, and producing oil closer to home and from more friendly countries.... why can't the refinery be closer to the source?

Just wondering other's thoughts.....

I was curious about this as well. It seems like if there's money in the project that a refinery could be built way closer to the oil than introducing the cost and negotiations of having a pipeline crossing multiples states.

tsjct
01-19-2012, 09:18 AM
The problem is getting a permit for a refinery would be 10K times harder than this little keystone pipeline project. The last one was built in the early 70's for that reason. EPA has taken over and...

Star_Cards
01-19-2012, 09:28 AM
Then there's the problem right there. There's no reason why refineries aren't be built, especially if there is a supply of oil that need refining.

duane1969
01-19-2012, 10:50 AM
I've been reading about this as I haven't heard of this until today. From what I found the project was rejected due to the route of the pipeline. I know some people will see jobs as way more important than any environmental impacts this pipeline may bring up. Apparently the proposed path of the pipeline would run across the Ogallala Aquifer, which is an enormous underground lake that extends from south dakota to texas and supplies water for millions of people and irrigates to 20% of America's agriculture. While this would bring a large amount of jobs (read that 100,000 were estimated) I think you need to also think about what an impact any sort of leaks would have on the areas where the pipeline travels. However, it seems like if the environmental concerns are valid, they'd be able to redirect the pipeline. Seems likes Obama is completely for the project but wants a better route for it. At least that's the sense I got when reading multiple articles about this.

This, of course, reminds of me of the Alaskan Pipeline. I wasn't alive during the building of that but there were a lot of measures that they needed to address to have a minimal amount of environmental impact. I know that "green" is seen as a negative thing from some people, but I don't think you can underestimate the impacts that something like this could potentially have on an area.

From what I read, Nebraska is almost completely above the Ogallala Aquifer and rather dependent on this water source so it seems reasonable that they may have a concern about a pipeline for oil in this area.

by the way, I couldn't find out for sure... is this proposed to be buried or above ground? I'm assuming buried?

Also found this quote from here. Keystone-Pipeline (http://greenliving.about.com/od/scienceandtechnology/a/Keystone-Pipeline.htm)



to me that's a valid concern to have when finalizing a path across the United States.

I take issue with the idea that a pipeline would be that big of a risk to the Ogallala Aquifer. The Ogallala Aquifer already has numerous cities and towns built over it including Amarillo, TX, four major interstates (Routes 40, 70, 80 and 90) pass over it...not to mention how many millions of people must live over top of it with septic systems leetching human waste into the ground?

I just don't see a pipeline being a bigger risk to it than all of these other contaminating sources. It would take a MAJOR oil leak to contaminate the aquifer to the point of it being dangerous.

A tanker carrying chemicals wrecking on the interstate, the millions of rural septic systems and the city of Amarillo Texas strike me as much bigger threats to the aquifer.

Star_Cards
01-19-2012, 10:55 AM
I can't say what size risk it is or if it's greater than a single tanker carrying chemicals or millions of septic systems. It's a risk none the less and was just posting some things I found as to why someone would be concerned about the path of the pipeline.

duane1969
01-19-2012, 11:00 AM
I can't say what size risk it is or if it's greater than a single tanker carrying chemicals or millions of septic systems. It's a risk none the less and was just posting some things I found as to why someone would be concerned about the path of the pipeline.

Yeah I was moreso disputing the threat than targeting your comments. I agree that is the main reason that they are giving, but I would rather see a few hundred or even a few thousand gallons of crude oil spilled on top the gound than a 5000 gallon tanker of amonia or chlorine spilling into the interstate drainage system (which is not filtered before emptying into local water sources) or a few billion gallons of human waste water being leetched into the ground water system.

AUTaxMan
01-19-2012, 11:29 AM
Then there's the problem right there. There's no reason why refineries aren't be built, especially if there is a supply of oil that need refining.

If you don't work in the industry, you can't truly appreciate the bureaucratic monsters that the EPA and the state regulatory commissions have become or how much it costs to comply with their regulations.

Did you know that by law, the EPA is not allowed to do a cost-benefit analysis of enforcing its regs? For example, if a company wants to build a gas processing plant that will emit a minuscule portion of a toxic gas (say, in parts per million) that is so diluted that it could have no measurable negative effect on the environment, but the EPA regs say that said gas must be emitted only in parts per billion, and the cost of constructing a facility to get the number down to parts per billion to comply with the reg would cost the company an additional $100,000,000, the EPA cannot take the cost of compliance into effect in deciding whether or not to enforce the regulation. How ludicrous is that? They would have just killed an energy project in the name of saving the environment that really did nothing at all except for justifying the EPA's existence. This type of thing happens all the time.

Take 5 minutes and read this. It will tell you all that you need to know about the EPA.

http://www.boortz.com/weblogs/nealz-nuze/2011/sep/27/absurd-regulations-epa/