Keystone Pipeline evaluation

[ggies07]

Obama better not approve it or all his climate talk is rubbish. And he's been on a climate kick for the last year, so we will see how it goes....

 

[Robert.Boston]

Obama better not approve it or all his climate talk is rubbish. And he's been on a climate kick for the last year, so we will see how it goes....

He has "plausible deniability" from the Dept. of State study that concludes the pipeline won't materially impact climate change, and he can always lean on public safety issues (moving oil by rail or road is even more dangerous). I haven't seen a competing study, but the NRDC has an excellent summary of the issues and brings a lot of facts and figures to bear.

My guess, however, is that the next Congress will have a veto-proof majority to push this through. The Senate was short only 8 votes from that target, and I'd bet the House is even more lopsided on this issue.

 

[nwdiver]

He has "plausible deniability" from the Dept. of State study that concludes the pipeline won't materially impact climate change.

The assumption that the tar sands would be fully exploited with or without a pipeline is a load of... to borrow a phrase... 'Malarky'. Trains are more expensive to use and easier to interrupt than a pipeline. I suspect we're going to see more and more regulations in regard to shipping oil by train and probably a lot more civil disobedience too.

Other oils routes through Canada are also being blocked by litigation. This fight is far too important to give up on.

It's hard to do this to a pipeline;

Also... there are few major companies that ship oil by rail in the US... BNSF, CSX and Union Pacific. They all carry other freight and if transporting oil and coal becomes more of a liability that would increase the cost to ship.

 

[callmesam]

That's a rather poor way to hobble the industry isn't it? It's better to let them transport as efficiently as possible and then apply taxes to capture the externalized costs. The tax money could be used to fund sustainable infrastructure. The extra diesel required to haul the black goo down the road is just up in smoke.

I'd agree to build KXL if they couple it with a carbon tax. Every single carbon source playing on a level field. Sounds dreamy ;-)

 

[nwdiver]

I'd agree to build KXL if they couple it with a carbon tax. Every single carbon source playing on a level field. Sounds dreamy ;-)

I could live with that... ~$100/bbl sent through the pipeline goes into a clean energy fund :wink:

 

[callmesam]

He has "plausible deniability" from the Dept. of State study that concludes the pipeline won't materially impact climate change, and he can always lean on public safety issues (moving oil by rail or road is even more dangerous). I haven't seen a competing study, but the NRDC has an excellent summary of the issues and brings a lot of facts and figures to bear.

My guess, however, is that the next Congress will have a veto-proof majority to push this through. The Senate was short only 8 votes from that target, and I'd bet the House is even more lopsided on this issue.

No way there is a veto-proof majority. Do the math. The biggest losers in this election were Dems in favor of extraction. Manchin, Landrieu (probably gone), Mark Begich, Kay Hagan, Mark Pryor, and Mark Udall.

Include retiring D's in favor of carbon extraction . . .Tim Johnson, Carl Levin, Jay Rockefeller, and John Walsh

Look again at the vote totals.

 

[Robert.Boston]

Hmm, you're right. I hadn't looked closely at which Ds had voted for Keystone and how they fared on Election Day.

I'm going to assume that Landrieu loses; she was well behind before this Keystone XL vote, and the outcome sealed her fate. So that gives the GOP 54 votes. No GOP member voted against Keystone XL last time, and I expect they will hold together as a bloc the next time.

So, are there 13 Democrats who will join them to override? 14 Democrats did last time, but you're right, not all of them are returning.

• Begich (D-AK) lost, but is being replaced by GOP
• Pryor (D-AR) lost, but is being replaced by GOP
• Landrieu (D-LA) will likely lose, but either way it's a pro-Keystone seat
• McCaskill (D-MO) lost, but is being replaced by GOP
• Walsh (D-MT) didn't run, being replaced by GOP
• Hagan (D-NC) lost, but is being replaced by GOP
• Bennett (D-CO) wasn't up for re-election
• Carper (D-DE) wasn't up for re-election
• Donnelly (D-IN) wasn't up for re-election
• Tester (D-MT) wasn't up for re-election
• Heitkamp (D-ND) wasn't up for re-election
• Casey (D-PA) wasn't up for re-election
• Manchin (D-WV) wasn't up for re-election
• Warner (D-VA) won re-election

So 6 of the 14 Democrats who voted for Keystone XL lost their seats, leaving only 8 likely senators to side with the GOP. That would bring the total vote to 62-38: enough to get past cloture but not past veto. It's even possible that Warner would not vote for Keystone XL again, now that he's safely in office for another six years.

 

[ggies07]

I signed one of those petitions that was sent to senators to not vote for Keystone. Here is John Cornyn's response:

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif] I support the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline because I believe it will bolster America’s energy security, create more than 42,000 new American jobs, and add more than $3 billion to the U.S. gross domestic product (GDP).
[/FONT]

Really? The pipeline is going to "bolster" our energy security? Please. And 42,000 jobs? From what I've read there won't be that many around once it's complete.

 

[nwdiver]

Really? The pipeline is going to "bolster" our energy security? Please. And 42,000 jobs? From what I've read there won't be that many around once it's complete.

Maybe they're counting all the people that are going to be employed cleaning up the spills, rebuilding after AGW strengthened hurricanes, additional military forces from AGW induced civil unrest... sounds like a job creator to me...

 

[jerry33]

Really? The pipeline is going to "bolster" our energy security? Please. And 42,000 jobs? From what I've read there won't be that many around once it's complete.

My understanding is that there will be 50 permanent jobs once construction is finished. Of course, there will also be jobs for our grandchildren to clean up the mess.

 

[RiverBrick]

This outfit has been around for a while, but just got my attention because of their first billboards in Quebec. (The link is to older ones in Alberta). Naturally, they have ties to pipeline backers.



billboard-blames-sun-climate-change-not-humanity-154657243.html

 

[nwdiver]

United we stand... let's block all routes...

Kinder Morgan - Campaigns - Tar Sands Solutions Network

The meme that the tar sands will be mined with or without KXL is ABSOLUTELY FALSE.

 

[sandpiper]

United we stand... let's block all routes...

Kinder Morgan - Campaigns - Tar Sands Solutions Network

View attachment 64135

The meme that the tar sands will be mined with or without KXL is ABSOLUTELY FALSE.

There's no Keystone XL right now, yet the mining is proceeding full bore as we speak. Therefore it's not required. QED.

The most that blocking keystone could do is divert the oil elsewhere - via rail, road or other pipelines. And in that case the US just imports a bit more from Venezuela or some other source. No net effect on either GHG emissions or oil sands production. The only solution is on the demand side. If people want to make a REAL difference, focus there. Of course that's a much tougher target to hit than one specific but practically insignificant pipeline.

 

[ggies07]

The most that blocking keystone could do is divert the oil elsewhere - via rail, road or other pipelines. And in that case the US just imports a bit more from Venezuela or some other source. No net effect on either GHG emissions or oil sands production. The only solution is on the demand side. If people want to make a REAL difference, focus there. Of course that's a much tougher target to hit than one specific but practically insignificant pipeline.

Yes, you are right, but here the people are speaking and getting heard, so however little it is, it's a start....especially in our political atmosphere right now. Plus, 350.org has the divestment campaign going on and that's quite successful so far.

Edit:

As I speak, this just happened:

 

[sandpiper]

Yes, you are right, but here the people are speaking and getting heard, so however little it is, it's a start....especially in our political atmosphere right now. Plus, 350.org has the divestment campaign going on and that's quite successful so far.

I support that 1,000%.

 

[RichardC]

There's no Keystone XL right now, yet the mining is proceeding full bore as we speak. Therefore it's not required. QED.

The most that blocking keystone could do is divert the oil elsewhere - via rail, road or other pipelines. And in that case the US just imports a bit more from Venezuela or some other source. No net effect on either GHG emissions or oil sands production. The only solution is on the demand side. If people want to make a REAL difference, focus there. Of course that's a much tougher target to hit than one specific but practically insignificant pipeline.

That is factually incorrect. Numerous tar sands projects are now being cancelled or deferred. For example:

Uncertainly over the Keystone XL pipeline and a slump in oil prices are prompting several big companies to halt plans to extract oil from the Alberta tar sands.The latest company to pull out of the tar sands is Norwegian oil giant Statoil. But just in the last year, Shell, the French energy company Total, and SunCor Energy of Canada have all cancelled tar sands projects.
Brian Palmer, a writer for OnEarth Magazine (a publication of the Natural Resources Defense Council), says there are a variety of factors behind these decisions, but the main reason is the uncertainty surrounding the Keystone XL pipeline.
That pipeline is crucial to tar sands projects becoming profitable, Palmer says. Without it, “a marginally profitable business [turns] into a completely unprofitable business — and that's scaring oil producers off of tar sands projects,” Palmer explains.

See: Big companies are pulling the plug on their projects in Albertas tar sands | Public Radio International

Norway’s Statoil ASA has shelved a multibillion-dollar oil sands project, blaming rising construction costs and the repeated delays in new export pipelines that would boost the value of Canadian heavy crude oil.

See: Statoil halts multibillion-dollar Alberta oil sands project - The Globe and Mail

 

[ggies07]

350.org s Keystone XL veto shows the power of our work

I'd like to highlight the spirit of this article and it's campaign:

The fossil-fuel industry’s aura of invincibility is gone. They’ve got all the money on the planet, but they no longer have unencumbered political power. Science counts, too, and so do the passion, spirit and creativity of an awakened movement from the outside, from the ground-up.

 

[TheTalkingMule]

Well I have some bad news for these guys, Keystone will definitely be a part of the grand bargain to be struck between the WH and Congress over the next 7 months or so. It's almost guaranteed to pass, Obama just isn't going to give away his best trump card for free.

 

[ggies07]

I really like Elizabeth Warren. She gets the American people and it's nice to have her there in Congress. We need more like her fighting for us and our world.

 

[ggies07]

From my 350.org email:

Friends,
Earlier today, the Nebraska Supreme Court avoided ruling on the current Keystone XL route in Nebraska, allowing the pipeline route to stand in the state.
Landowners had been counting on the courts to protect them from TransCanada's bullying attempts to run tar sands through their homes. As happens all too often with Big Oil, our government institutions failed, allowing a risky route through sensitive land and water.
But where the Nebraska court fell short, President Obama can stand tall. He’s promised to veto legislation to approve the pipeline, and he’s talking more and more like someone who wants to reject it. Now he has a chance to show what his words are worth, and act to protect land, water and climate by rejecting Keystone XL.
Because of this breaking news, we’re moving up our planned “Reject Keystone XL Now” petition delivery to the White House. We want to show the President that a huge number of people are counting on him to stand firm on this.
If you’ve already signed the petition, you can click here to share it with your friends on Facebook to help send an even stronger signal to the President.
President Obama has said for months that he was only waiting on the legal process to finish before deciding about the pipeline. If he wanted, he could reject Keystone XL today.
Nebraska has been ground zero for resistance to Keystone XL from the very beginning, and farmers, ranchers and tribal leaders will continue their amazing work no matter what the Nebraska Supreme Court says. And we will continue to fight alongside them. The pipeline still doesn't have a permit in South Dakota, where the No KXL Dakota alliance of tribal leaders and landowners are also taking the fight to Big Oil.
The climate impact of Keystone XL would be enormous, cutting transportation costs for tar sands producers and unleashing a flood of tar sands onto world markets.
That means the pipeline fails President Obama's climate test, and the case for rejection is clear -- and I think he knows it. But the longer he waits to act, the more likely it is that Congress will interfere.
President Obama can end this fiasco now by rejecting the pipeline. Click here to share the with your friends on Facebook and we'll deliver it to the President.
It has been an honor to stand alongside you in this fight. Let's finish it.
Duncan
P.S. If you're able to do more in this crucial moment, click here to sign up to join the Stop Keystone XL Now Team, and we'll be in touch about opportunities to jump into action in the coming days.