Keystone report likely to upset opponents

[okie52]

Keystone Pipeline Report Likely to Upset Opponents

Friday, 31 Jan 2014 09:18 AM
By Melissa Clyne

Environmentalists should brace for disappointment when the State Department releases its environmental impact study on the Keystone XL oil pipeline, Fox News reports.

The project’s opponents believe the Canada-U.S. pipeline would intensify global warming by transporting "dirty oil" extracted from tar sands.

A March report found the pipeline would only minimally impact carbon emissions and the newest report, which could be released Friday, is expected to reach a similar conclusion, Bloomberg also reported, citing anonymous sources.

In June, President Barack Obama said he would not approve the pipeline if studies found it would “significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution.”

After he receives the latest report, the president will have 90 days to review it and decide whether he believes the project is in the country’s best interest, according to Fox.

Supporters of the 1,700-mile, $5.4 billion pipeline project say it will create thousands of construction jobs. Environmentalists argue it will increase greenhouse gas emissions, while other opponents say jobs created by the pipeline would be only temporary.

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders took to Twitter on Tuesday to blast pipeline supporters and deride tar sands oil as “the dirtiest on earth.”

"No one who is serious about reversing global warming could support the pipeline," he said.

Obama did not mention the controversial pipeline project during this week’s State of the Union address, though he was absolute in his thoughts about global warming.

“The debate is settled,” he asserted. “Climate change is a fact."

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/keystone-pipeline-environmental-report/2014/01/31/id/550140#ixzz2rzLBrWLg
.

[Soonerjeepman]

Climate change might be a fact...but the reasons why (which fuels the libs arguement) is NOT.

[okie52]

Well, that point is immaterial to some.

[diverdog]

Haha. I knew Okie would be on this like stink on ****.

I am in the middle of reading a book about the American Buffalo. There are some interesting facts. The first that I did not know is that the land bridge between Siberia and Alaska was over 1000 miles wide, dominated by grasslands and mountains. The buffalo range from Alaska to Florida. The changes in climate were dramatic. Places we associate with ice were at one time grasslands.

I have no doubt man iss affecting the climate and I have no doubt it will be an issue for us. On the other hand we are going to face climate change as long as we are on this planet. The question is how to deal with it.

[badger]

On the other hand we are going to face climate change as long as we are on this planet. The question is how to deal with it

Word. Fortunately, we have seasonal changes every year so we are forced to adapt to deal with hot temperatures, cold temperatures, rainy weather, snowy weather, etc. on an annual basis. Oklahomans are especially good at adapting, as our weather changes by the minute :P

Back on topic, looks like there's no State Department environmental objections (http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/energy/keystone-xl-oil-pipeline-clears-significant-hurdle/article_20854e5a-8ab5-11e3-8f3b-001a4bcf6878.html). BUT...

The department report stops short of recommending approval of the $7 billion pipeline, which has become a major symbol of the political debate over climate change. But the review gives Obama political cover if he chooses to endorse the pipeline in spite of opposition from many Democrats and environmental groups.

Will be interesting what the outcome is. Personally, I'm not sure why we're so gung ho about doing Canada energy a favor like this. There's nothing that stipulates that we are sharing in the oil profits that come from this project, nor are we going to be the oil buyer once it's refined.

[okie52]

Hell I'm buying all the property I can in OK for when it becomes "beachfront".

[okie52]

Keystone: The Pipeline to Disaster
Posted: 02/03/2014 7:35 am

The new State Department Environmental Impact Statement for the Keystone Pipeline does three things. First, it signals a greater likelihood that the pipeline project will be approved later this year by the administration. Second, it vividly illustrates the depth of confusion of US climate change policy. Third, it self-portrays the US Government as a helpless bystander to climate calamity. According to the State Department report, we are trapped in the Big Oil Status Quo We Can Believe In.

The proposed pipeline will complete a pipeline network running from Alberta, Canada to the US Gulf Coast, carrying petroleum produced from Alberta's oil sands to the Gulf refineries. The volumes will be enormous, roughly 830,000 barrels per day. The pipeline will thereby facilitate the mass extraction and use of Canada's enormous unconventional supplies. Therein lies the problem.

The overwhelming scientific consensus is that human-induced climate change is occurring; that the world is experiencing a rapidly rising frequency of extreme climate-related events such as heat waves; and that there is much worse to come unless we change course on the use of fossil fuels. Specifically, with energy business as usual, the world is on a trajectory to raise the mean global temperature by at least 3 degrees C (5.4 degrees F) by the end of century, and possibly far more, a climate disruption that most scientists regard as catastrophic. The world's governments have agreed to try to keep the temperature increase below 2-degrees C, yet until now they've done far too little to meet that target.

(Note that after decades of rapid temperature increases up to 1998, the rise in global mean temperatures slowed a bit after 1998. With the post-1998 Pacific Ocean tending towards La Nina conditions, the Pacific Ocean rather than the Earth's land area has been absorbing much of the excess thermal energy trapped by CO2 and other greenhouse gases. Yet once the Pacific Ocean swings back to the El Nino or neutral conditions that prevailed up to 1998, rapid global warming is likely to resume. Therefore the slight recent pause in the upward ascent of temperatures is only a short respite from the ongoing long-term process of rapid global warming.)

The economic implications of the climate science are clear. Either we keep some of the world's oil, gas, and coal reserves under the ground (rather than burning them in cars, factories, power plants, and buildings), or we wreck the planet. The atmospheric CO2 concentration is determined by the cumulative combustion of fossil fuels. We've already burned enough fossil fuels to raise the world's temperatures by around 1 degree C. Burning the rest of the proved reserves would cause humanity to overshoot the 2-degree target by several degrees.

The urgent planetary need is clear. The world has to wean itself from fossil fuel dependence in the coming 20-40 years. We simply can't go on drilling, excavating, and burning every ton of coal, oil, and gas the fossil fuel industry finds. If we do so, the basic "carbon arithmetic" of CO2 buildup spells disaster.

In the current market jargon, the world needs to strand some of its fossil fuel reserves, meaning that some must be left under the ground rather than extracted and burned. We must substitute these stranded fossil fuel reserves with low-carbon alternatives, including nuclear, solar, wind, hydro, and geothermal power. There are ample supplies of these low-carbon alternatives, but to build up the use of these alternatives will require considerable investments for several decades to come.

The most important single step is to keep most of the coal from being burned. The next is to avoid the temptation to develop every bit of "non-conventional" oil and gas that can be found. With new technologies, unconventional oil and gas like Canada's oil sands can now be developed at today's market prices, but at great peril for the planet.

Using climate science, it is possible to calculate the tolerable limits on total future fossil fuel use. The basic idea is the need for the world to adhere to a "carbon budget," meaning the total amount of fossil fuels that can be burned while avoiding global warming by more than 2-degrees C. (We should note that even the 2-degree C target, which we are now overshooting by a wide mark, would cause very damaging changes to the Earth's climate systems, and result in devastating famines, floods, heat waves, and other catastrophes.)

The Keystone pipeline is crucial to the global carbon budget. If the world deploys massive unconventional oil sources like Canada's oil sands we will exceed the carbon budget, unless there is a simultaneous strategy to offset that excess carbon some other way. But to do so would be using Canada's expensive, dirty, and CO2-intensive oil when cheaper, (relatively) cleaner, and lower-CO2 oil is available. Under any circumstances, to evaluate the Keystone Project properly, we need to judge it against the global carbon budget.

Herein lies the tragic, indeed fatal, flaw of the State Department review. The State Department Environmental Impact Statement doesn't even ask the right question: How do the unconventional Canadian oil sands fit or not fit within the overall carbon budget? Instead, the State Department simply assumes, without any irony or evident self-awareness, that the oil sands will be developed and used one way or another. For the State Department, the main issue therefore seems to be whether the oil will be shipped by pipeline or by rail. The State Department doesn't even raise the possibility that the pipeline should be stopped in order to keep a lid on the total amount of unconventional fossil fuels burned around the world.

The core assumption of the report is that the US Government has no role to play, either alone or in conjunction with Canada and other countries, to stay within an overall global carbon budget.

[A]pproval or denial of any one crude oil transport project, including the proposed Project, is unlikely to significantly impact the rate of extraction in the oil sands or the continued demand for heavy crude oil at refiners in the United States based on expected oil prices, oil-sands supply costs, transport costs, and supply-demand scenarios. [ES-16]
According to the State Department, in other words, the US Government is just a passive spectator to global climate change. Either the pipeline is built or the oil will be shipped by other means. Full stop. The State Department doesn't even broach the idea that the pipeline discussion really needs to be about the urgent need to shift from fossil fuels, including the need to keep unconventional hydrocarbon reserves under the ground.

I can hear the skeptics scoffing: What would make Canada not develop these resources? And why shouldn't Americans profit from the oil sands? The answer should be the future survival and wellbeing of humanity, an idea admittedly of little apparent interest in Washington or Ottawa, centers of greed, cynicism, and shortsightedness. There is money to be made NOW, the future be damned.

But do not lose hope. The greed and incompetence on display in Washington and Ottawa is not a permanent reality, but a passing phase. Teddy Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, and John Kennedy were able to face down gilded interests for the greater good. Many oil companies, including leading companies in Europe and also some in North America, are already on side to stay within the global carbon budget. The vast majority of Americans want safety for themselves, their children, and the rest of humanity. Our generation can still turn the tide against environmental disaster..

[TheHumanAlphabet]

I see the no scrotum Leftist is hemming and hawing about approving the pipeline now that the report says it is ok. Now the scrotumless fellow is saying that other agencies have to weigh in and we have to have hearings... What a crock. He got the standard he stated met and now he wants to push the decision further back...

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Personally, I'm not sure why we're so gung ho about doing Canada energy a favor like this. There's nothing that stipulates that we are sharing in the oil profits that come from this project, nor are we going to be the oil buyer once it's refined.

Badg...It is about cheap oil and cheap gas and margin. Since we lost Venezuela as a low grade crude resource, we have had to go to higher crude grades or ship heavy oil from large distances. This all impacts the price. Canada Bitumen is similar to Venezuela crude and most of the Gulf Coast refineries are designed to use this low grade product. A pipeline would be the cheapest and safest way to get the product to the refineries.

[jkjsooner]

I really don't give a crap about the keystone pipeline but nobody has ever explained to me what we get out of it other than a few jobs. What's the benefit to us to give Canada easy access to international markets?

Aren't they currently dumping a lot of that stuff on us for cheap?


Saw this was sort of already answered. I'm still not convinced we're getting enough out of Canada though.

[okie52]

I really don't give a crap about the keystone pipeline but nobody has ever explained to me what we get out of it other than a few jobs. What's the benefit to us to give Canada easy access to international markets?

Aren't they currently dumping a lot of that stuff on us for cheap?

Saw this was sort of already answered. I'm still not convinced we're getting enough out of Canada though.

US oil companies own leases on those canadian tar sands...companies like Devon....that's jobs right here in OK not to mention the Cushing connection. It also offers a safer, more secure delivery system than by rail or truck and certainly more reliable than mideast oil. And you have the refineries in TX, LA getting jobs from the potential increased crude. And you have the jobs that will occur due to the construction and maintenance of the pipeline. I really don't see what there is not to get. The Canadian government is only retaining a royalty on the production produced by US companies. What more would you have them do?

[jkjsooner]

US oil companies own leases on those canadian tar sands...companies like Devon....that's jobs right here in OK not to mention the Cushing connection. It also offers a safer, more secure delivery system than by rail or truck and certainly more reliable than mideast oil. And you have the refineries in TX, LA getting jobs from the potential increased crude. And you have the jobs that will occur due to the construction and maintenance of the pipeline. I really don't see what there is not to get. The Canadian government is only retaining a royalty on the production produced by US companies. What more would you have them do?

I just wanted someone to explain to me what you just did.

[okie52]

I just wanted someone to explain to me what you just did.

Oh...okay. I forgot to mention it will also move about 100,000 barrels of crude from the US bakken field in N Dakota to the refineries on the gulf coast...

[TheHumanAlphabet]

I really don't give a crap about the keystone pipeline but nobody has ever explained to me what we get out of it other than a few jobs. What's the benefit to us to give Canada easy access to international markets?

Aren't they currently dumping a lot of that stuff on us for cheap?


Saw this was sort of already answered. I'm still not convinced we're getting enough out of Canada though.

We also get to refine the product in our refineries...