Pages

Friday, January 20, 2012

The Keystone Pipeline




Greetings,


Today, I read Robert Samuelson's "Rejecting the Keystone pipeline is an act of insanity."

Side by side, these views spotlight America's obsession with short-term "fixes." 

Like a child in tantrum, the unregulated marketplace fulminates over its wanton way, disregarding downstream costs. (A gift, perhaps, for The Party of Family Values' grandchildren?) 

On Rehm's show, Bill McKibben pointed out that the fossil fuel industry uses the atmosphere as an "open sewer."

Apt image.

I am reminded of the saying: "There is never enough time or money to do things right. But there is always enough time and money to do them over."

This time, the second sentence may not be true - and not for lack of money.

Fouling the nest... and proud of it.

Pax 

Alan

PS Although the number of "new jobs" created by any large project is difficult to determine, Samuelson posits 10,000 new jobs, each lasting two years. If we assume that a career lasts 35 years, the number of "lifelong jobs" generated by the pipeline is five hundred and seventy one (571).



White House decision on proposed Keystone XL Pipeline

Thursday, January 19, 2012 - 10:06 a.m.
Demonstrators march with a replica of a pipeline during a protest to demand a stop to the Keystone XL tar sands oil pipeline outside the White House on Sunday, Nov. 6, 2011, in Washington. - AP Photo/Evan Vucci
Demonstrators march with a replica of a pipeline during a protest to demand a stop to the Keystone XL tar sands oil pipeline outside the White House on Sunday, Nov. 6, 2011, in Washington.
AP Photo/Evan Vucci
Yesterday the Obama administration denied TransCanada’s application for the Keystone XL pipeline. The project was to carry oil from Canada’s tar sands to the Gulf Coast. The proposed route would have been an economic boost but raised environmental concerns, especially in Nebraska’s Sandhills. The White House claims a deadline imposed by Republicans in Congress precluded adequate review, but the project may still go forward: TransCanada is likely to reapply with a revised proposed route. Please join us to discuss the Keystone XL pipeline, jobs and the environment

Guests

Bill McKibben 

founder,350.org
scholar in residence,Middlebury College.
Steven Mufson 

energy correspondent, the Washington Post
Matthew Koch 
vice president, Oil Sands and Arctic Issues at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Institute for 21st Century Energy
Sarah Ladislaw 
senior fellow, Energy and National Security Program,
Center for Strategic and International Studies
David Mallino 
Laborers International Union of North America

Comments


reinhard wrote:
It's clear the Obama administration only cares about reelection or more precisely personal gain, the decision is typical of the depravity that grips the highest office in government. Obama is more concerned with votes than jobs. All but the most extreme zealots know were not getting off oil anytime soon, so it's obvious that Obama's "urgency" to create jobs is a total lie. This oil will be used and exported through the use of pipelines regardless of any decision or lack of a decision made by the BO administration.
January 18, 2012 - 9:53 pm

Hale Anderson wrote:
We move on now, great to know the President found some courage. Climate change and forest destruction is part of the next battle - Tar Sands extraction projects have to be halted in their tracks. The larger issue is to sensitize and generate boots on the ground globally to meet this Challenge. At Pomona College on Thursday evening, Bill Mckibben delivered an address to a packed crowd - during the Q&A he pointed out, when each of us awakens each day, we must ask ourselves, what can I do to change the odds just a little bit. --- That mandate remains in place - we changed the odds enough to make a difference - and we must continue doing so to insure a livable future for the planet
January 19, 2012 - 2:43 am

rose-mary wrote:
Diane,
Thank you for taking on this most important topic.
I am exceedingly pleased with the President's decision today; yes it was a *temporary* delay in re-evaluating this misbegotten project's destiny; still it must not be forgotten that only a few months earlier, the State Department's blessing of the permit was (almost) a given. Massive Protest and Civil Disobedience turned the tide. I was one of those (per Bill McKibben's call to action) who joined fellow activists (repeatedly) at both the White House and the State Department hearings. Bill Mckibben is a hero. :). You can tell him I said so.
A critical aspect that is missing in much of the news coverage (re: denying the permit) today is the significance of the Canadian Boreal Forests that are being systematically massacred to extract the Bitumen (Tar Sands). James Hansen, NASA's leading climate scientist, has stated -very clearly- that the progression of the Tar Sands Project in Alberta, Canada spells "Game Over" for the climate issue. In other words, the co2 that will be both released into the atmosphere and the co2 that will not be subject to sequestration by the "destroyed" forest will be (cumulatively) sufficient to wave goodbye to our chances in view of reversing the trend on global warming/climate change.
The Boreal Forests in question are the size of Florida; if the Tar Sands project continues.. it could destroy a pristine forest (and all the life therein) the size of Florida.
I hope you are able to talk to Bill about this aspect of this issue - and give him a chance to elaborate.
Many many thanks for your good work and may Earth Live!
-rosemary.
January 19, 2012 - 2:59 am

rose-mary wrote:
Thanks Hale!
Agree wholeheartedly - it will take a massive movement.
-rosemary.
January 19, 2012 - 3:05 am

Hale Anderson wrote:
You're on to it, Rosemary, the larger issue is Climate Change. That must be etched into the minds of everyone, everywhere - all the time 'til it's front page.
January 19, 2012 - 3:11 am

Steve on Plum Isle wrote:
Obama's decision is a temporary decision and he will flop.
Keystone will apply for permits again.
And once the elections are over, he will OK the pipeline.
January 19, 2012 - 8:55 am

Bo Jones wrote:
1. Please ask the guest ("experts", I presume) -- why not build a refinery way up north near the Canada/US border so that the "dangerous" sludgy type oil doesn't have to go thru pipelines?
Even tho I realize that building a new refinery is extremely expensive, it still seems that it is less expensive than being dependent on mideast oil (which cost us trillions in wars and anti-terrorism operations!)
2. As for alternatives to fossil fuels -- solar sounds fantastic, but doesn't seem to be working as planned (Solyndra!) But ask the guests about the Tata Motors of India which has a small car powered by compressed air.
January 19, 2012 - 8:56 am

Arleen M wrote:
Nobody seems to mention that the Keystone pipeline already partially exists and is on-line pumping oil to refineries in Oklahoma and Illinois. What they want is an extension (XL) and another segment to the Texas Gulf Coast. Why? The obvious answer is to EXPORT it. Why else would they need to build it all the way to a Gulf port?
January 19, 2012 - 9:13 am

reinhard wrote:
Man made global climate change as a theory is getting weaker as time goes by, I wonder how long it will be for the conversation of fear to revert back to the 70's when the big scare was another ice age is coming or something else. By the way if you think countries like China and India are going to stop using fossil fuels and further impoverish their people you do not have a grip on reality. Even this country doesn't have the stomach for expensive and woefully inadequate power sources pushed by the radical left.
Steve on Plum has it right, we are going to get that pipeline after the game playing stops.
January 19, 2012 - 9:16 am

johnandere wrote:
Hale Anderson wrote:
"The larger issue is to sensitize and generate boots on the ground globally to meet this Challenge. "
Then we can all put on our hair shirts and move into caves.
January 19, 2012 - 9:28 am

Consultant wrote:
This is great news for the majority of the electorate who believe this President is taking the country in the wrong direction. This decision will further strengthen opposition to the President and insure we have a new President next January -- THAN GOD!!
January 19, 2012 - 9:44 am

mancuroc wrote:
If the oil pumped through this pipeline were essential to Americans, it would either be refined as near to the source as possible, or at some location central to most of its potential buyers. So why then does the pipeline traverse the entire nation from north to south to terminate near a port on the Gulf of Mexico? Not for export, surely???
January 19, 2012 - 10:02 am

rhoenes wrote:
Building a refinery near the Canada/US border would be a bad idea because it is environmentally safer to pipe crude instead of gasoline. The density of the crude means less pervasive contamination and easier clean up.
January 19, 2012 - 10:07 am

StLouis wrote:
The President's action was the obvious choice. America needs neither the jobs nor the stable supply of economical oil from a strategically friendly source.
January 19, 2012 - 10:20 am

clarance wrote:
It seems to me that a TWOFER is in order. If the oil pipeline were built side by side with a fresh water pipeline from the thousands of unspoiled freshwater lakes in northern Canada, we could pipe water to the southern USA and not have to build more dams.
AND if the Nebraska aquafer was despoiled by an oil spill, bingo, the water source could be replaced right away by the water pipeline.
Then nearly everyone would be satisfied. The oil folks, the environmental folks.
January 19, 2012 - 10:21 am

banjonews wrote:
Why doesn't Canada build their own refinery?
January 19, 2012 - 10:22 am

smartypants wrote:
Your guest from Chamber of Commerce heads the 21st Century Energy Commission. What's 21st century about petroleum?
January 19, 2012 - 10:22 am

johnandere wrote:
AGW (Antropogenic Global Warming) aka MMGW (Man-Made Global Warming) continues to be an interesting, but unproven theory. Until it is scientifically demonstrated it is a crime to persecute our populations with restrictions for a problem over which we may have no control whatsoever. The question isn't whether the planet is warming. It's whether man is causing it. If man is not causing it, all our attempts to halt the process are a waste and we ought to look to methods to adapt, instead of wasting billions sticking our thumbs in the dike.
The conflation of GW with AGW by the progressive left (not just in this country, but world-wide) is a convenient way to bring about the control of peoples' behavior, however. And that's what this is really all about.
January 19, 2012 - 10:22 am

mellifluous wrote:
There are some economic activities that get prohibited because they are not worth the cost to society. From what I've read, TransCanada already has a spotty safety record and has used substandard materials in the construction of the original Keystone pipeline.
Allowing this company to suck oil out of sand and pump that product across a fragile aquifer should be regarded as the moral and practical equivalent of slavery, forced prostitution and selling crack to schoolchildren. At what price jobs?
I've been dismayed by this President's timidity in the past in confronting bullies and villains, but in this instance, he's done the right thing and I applaud this action.
January 19, 2012 - 10:33 am

kathleen wrote:
Definitely seems like they need to do more studies on safety etc. And this is what President Obama is doing. What was the response of the folks who live in the areas that the pipeline was going to go through?
Over the years I have come to grips about the huge contradiction with so called environmentalist who fight developing national energy resources while they drive their trucks, etc 30 miles out in the country to the farmers market to buy organic vegetables, or running their kids off to dance classes, sports events etc. Or so called environmentalist who fly all over the planet burning fuel and scream about local development of energy resources. This hypocrisy is outrageous.
The big issue with energy development or ongoing extraction is SAFETY and enforcing existing regulations and researching potential problems
January 19, 2012 - 10:23 am

kathleen wrote:
Cornell has a study out that says 6500 jobs would be created
January 19, 2012 - 10:24 am

kathleen wrote:
The Keystone pipeline will NOT create 20,000 new jobs
12:09 pm December 14, 2011, by Jay
“Millions of Americans are desperate for jobs, and no single project promises more of them than the proposed Keystone XL Pipeline, which would run from Canada to the Gulf Coast…. As the largest shovel-ready infrastructure project in the U.S., Keystone XL was expected to create 20,000 new jobs right away.”
– U.S. Sen. Dick Lugar and
Senate Minority Leader
Mitch McConnell
And that, of course, is false, and Lugar and McConnell have good reason to know it is false. The Keystone XL Pipeline, the centerpiece of the latest standoff in Washington, will not produce 20,000 shovel-ready jobs. Even TransCanada, the company pushing the pipeline’s construction, now acknowledges that it is false.
The number that the company likes to throw around is now 13,000 direct construction jobs, but that too is misleading. When challenged, the company acknowledges that it is counting what you might call “job years.” In other words, TransCanada believes the project will produce 6,500 jobs that last for two years.
Six thousand five hundred jobs is a far cry from 20,000. And even the 6,500-job estimate is much too high. According to an independent assessment by Cornell University’s School of Industrial and Labor Relations, the project would produce between 2,500 and 4,650 construction jobs, and could even end up costing the country jobs, for reasons that we’ll get to below.
January 19, 2012 - 10:26 am

barvazit wrote:
More oil to the US: false! Every drop of refined oil from this project is destined for export.
Oh, so many jobs: on the order of 70,000, which is much less than monthly added jobs.
January 19, 2012 - 10:26 am

jamesmrine wrote:
As I testified when the State Department visited Houston last year, this pipeline will encourage more production from the tar sands and doom our climate to even more damaging change than we are already going to experience. Plus, as a person who cycles about 100 miles a week in the Houston area, I was not looking forward to the added air pollution refining these dirty tar sand would create.
January 19, 2012 - 10:28 am

CatchCan wrote:
The oil companies keep saying that their purpose is to promote enery independence and create jobs. It's quite clear their real purpose is to use the Federal Government to help them bully their way accross the land in center of this nation to move their oil to refineries in the Gulf so they can increase their exports and profits. Let's be honest about this.
January 19, 2012 - 10:29 am

Bobo Amerigo wrote:
How about a little information about Harris County, Texas, where this dirty oil will be refined?
We have the dirtiest air in the country:
Big oil respects no one's lungs.
January 19, 2012 - 10:29 am

cv dento wrote:
Several weeks ago I saw a map of the existing and proposed pipeline. There is already a pipline running from Canada to Illinois. Why is it necessary to expand it to Texas?
January 19, 2012 - 10:29 am

montsar wrote:
Please ask why the Canadians won't refine the tars (oils?) themselves in Canada, i.e., if it's so abundant and valuable, why would the Canadians want to export the tars at all?
January 19, 2012 - 10:32 am

accountant wrote:
One of the claims I've heard is that the pipeline will help bring about energy independence in the US. I just checked the CIA web site and it seems they believe that Canada is still a separate country and not part of the United States.
January 19, 2012 - 10:34 am

mmiller wrote:
How much consideration has been given to the issues of storage or disposal of the waste produced by the various Oil Sands processes? We are now in a good position to use lessons learned from the nuclear industry, as part of determining whether or not this may be a decisive factor.
January 19, 2012 - 10:35 am


***

Robert J. Samuelson

Robert J. Samuelson
Opinion Writer

Rejecting the Keystone pipeline is an act of insanity

By , Published: January 19

President Obama’s rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico is an act of national insanity. It isn’t often that a president makes a decision that has no redeeming virtues and — beyond the symbolism — won’t even advance the goals of the groups that demanded it. All it tells us is that Obama is so obsessed with his reelection that, through some sort of political calculus, he believes that placating his environmental supporters will improve his chances.
Aside from the political and public relations victory, environmentalists won’t get much. Stopping the pipeline won’t halt the development of tar sands, to which the Canadian government is committed; therefore, there will be little effect on global-warming emissions. Indeed, Obama’s decision might add to them. If Canada builds a pipeline from Alberta to the Pacific for export to Asia, moving all that oil across the ocean by tanker will create extra emissions. There will also be the risk of added spills.
Robert J. Samuelson
Samuelson writes a weekly column on economics.
    You may also like...
Now consider how Obama’s decision hurts the United States. For starters, it insults and antagonizes a strong ally; getting future Canadian cooperation on other issues will be harder. Next, it threatens a large source of relatively secure oil that, combined with new discoveries in the United States, could reduce (though not eliminate) our dependence on insecure foreign oil.
Finally, Obama’s decision forgoes all the project’s jobs. There’s some dispute over the magnitude. Project sponsor TransCanada claims 20,000, split between construction (13,000) and manufacturing (7,000) of everything from pumps to control equipment. Apparently, this refers to “job years,” meaning one job for one year. If so, the actual number of jobs would be about half that spread over two years. Whatever the figure, it’s in the thousands and thus important in a country hungering for work. And Keystone XL is precisely the sort of infrastructure project that Obama claims to favor.
The big winners are the Chinese. They must be celebrating their good fortune and wondering how the crazy Americans could repudiate such a huge supply of nearby energy. There’s no guarantee that tar-sands oil will go to China; pipelines to the Pacific would have to be built. But it creates the possibility when the oil’s natural market is the United States.
There are three things to remember about Keystone and U.S. energy policy.
First, we’re going to use lots of oil for a long time. The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates that U.S. oil consumption will increase 4 percent between 2009 and 2035. The increase occurs despite highly optimistic assumptions about vehicle fuel efficiency and bio-fuels. But a larger population (390 million in 2035 versus 308 million in 2009) and more driving per vehicle offset savings.
The more oil we produce domestically and import from neighbors, the more we’re insulated from dramatic interruptions of global supplies. After the United States, Canada is the most dependable source of oil — or was, until Obama’s decision.
Second, barring major technological breakthroughs, emissions of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, will rise for similar reasons. The EIA projects that America’s CO2 emissions will increase by 16 percent from 2009 to 2035. (The EIA is updating its projections, but the main trends aren’t likely to change dramatically.) Stopping Canadian tar-sands development, were that possible, wouldn’t affect these emissions.
Finally, even if — as Keystone critics argue — some Canadian oil were refined in the United States and then exported, this would be a good thing. The exports would probably go mostly to Latin America. They would keep well-paid industrial jobs (yes, refining) in the United States and reduce our trade deficit in oil, which exceeded $300 billion in 2011.
By law, Obama’s decision was supposed to reflect “the national interest.” His standard was his political interest. The State Department had spent three years evaluating Keystone and appeared ready to approve the project by year-end 2011. Then the administration, citing opposition to the pipeline’s route in Nebraska, reversed course and postponed a decision to 2013 — after the election.
Now, reacting to a congressional deadline to decide, Obama rejected the proposal. But he also suggested that a new application with a modified Nebraska route — already being negotiated — might be approved, after the election. So the sop tossed to the environmentalists could be temporary. The cynicism is breathtaking.

Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)