The Obama administration will let it go forward, but to save face will probably throw some conditions on it as a sop to the environmentalists. What do you think?


I like to think of myself as a "reasonable" person when it comes to balancing environmental issues with industry and jobs. But I honestly don't understand the intense opposition that KXL has engendered. The arguments against it are pretty much along the lines of "oil from tar sands is really dirty, compared to oil pumped from a well," and "we should be encouraging development of alternate sources of energy rather than enabling access to more fossil fuel." I can accept that both of these statements are true, but they are also both irrelevant to the question of whether a pipeline should be built. It's not up to the US to dictate to Canada whether they should or should not get their oil from tar sands, Canada has already made that decision. The only question is whether the US should enable sending it via pipeline to the Gulf of Mexico for export, or say no and have Canada continue to ship oil via train (which as we've seen can lead to horrific accidents, such as teh deralment and fire in Quebec) or perhaps build their own pipeline. I have yet to hear from those oppsoed to K-XL why either of these two options is better environmentally than K-XL would be. What am I missing?

Oil and energy producers have a very bad record of clean up and response to disasters they are responsible for. Simple research yields some devastating effects on people and just the water supplies. You cannot ignore those effect, unless it's really profitable.

THe environazi's just want us to be beholden to the troglodytes in the Middle east... and give them all our money.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

Oil and energy producers have a very bad record of clean up and response to disasters they are responsible for. Simple research yields some devastating effects on people and just the water supplies. You cannot ignore those effect, unless it's really profitable.

---

You are using the arguyment that all pipelines are inherentkly bad, not that K-XL is any better or worse. Given that tens of thousands of miles of pipelines already exist, why is the final leg of K-XL any more dangerous? Isn't it less dangerous than shipping oil by rail, which is what they're currently doing?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smoothy

THe environazi's just want us to be beholden to the troglodytes in the Middle east... and give them all our money.

---

In fairness, the oil from K-XL is intended mostly for export, not for use in the US. Thus whether it's built or not has no bearing on how much money the US sends to the mideast for oil.

They could slow those trains down and keep the tracks in good condition to prevent derailments, AND keep the engineers alert.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

They could slow those trains down and keep the tracks in good condition to prevent derailments, AND keep the engineers alert.

---

Perhaps. Are you saying that shipping via rail is more environmentally friendly than shipping by pipeline? Really?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ebaines

In fairness, the oil from K-XL is intended mostly for export, not for use in the US. Thus whether it's built or not has no bearing on how much money the US sends to the mideast for oil.

---

Yes... but there will still be lots of jobs for everyone involved along the way... and that's money paid by those who buy that exported oil... that pays the wages of everyone building and maintaining it... and the Canadians involved in getting it out of the ground and to the port.

All money coming in... rather than going out. And thats money thats not going to the Middle east.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ebaines

Perhaps. Are you saying that shipping via rail is more environmentally friendly than shipping by pipeline? Really?

---

YES, as rail failures are attributed to human error and can be corrected unlike the pollution of entire communities devastated by leaks, neglect, or bad business practices. Think Colorado, SC, WVA, Michigan, just to name a few recent ones. If they didn't maintain older facilities and pipelines what evidence is there they will a new one?

Research it yourself and you tell me.

The record on pipeline maintenance over years is abysmal, and affects PEOPLE, and where they live horribly for a VERY long time. Exxon Valez???? BP Gulf spill???? Two of many examples.

ebaines ,you are correct . It makes little sense to block the pipeline . The emperor is appeasing a core constituency ;but after this year there will be no more reason for him to do so. If his party standard bearer is Evita Clinton ,then she will be hurt in the polls if she adopts the Emperor's job killing policies. He stalled by approving the southern section of the pipeline ....which is useless unless the rest of the line is built .

The oil is going to be refined and exported anyway . If not from American facilities then from another nation. The Canadians already have a back up plan to pipe it to Vancouver .

Good let them screw up their own land and water.

And the jobs are only temporary -- done at great (permanent) risk to the U.S. environment and residents.

There isn't any permanent harm to the environment here... or its residents... (your average section 8 housing project does far worse to the environment and the people than the entire pipeline would) and many of the jobs are permanent... you don't just build a pipeline and walk away from it. Well in Nigeria you might.....but the Alaska pipeline has employed thousands if not hundreds of thousands since it was built...those jobs didn't just disappear. (Yes I know a few people that helped build that pipeline). Wildlife has actually flourished since it was built around the pipeline...just the opposite of what the doom and gloom environazi's were claiming would happen.

And the people that do that sort of work... don't do ONLY that sort of work. THeir isn't a superspecialised job field of people who nothing but installing pipelines and can't do anything else)

You have Surveyours, COnstraction, metal fabrication.. etc... all of them existing industries in that area that are aching for work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smoothy

There isn't any permanent harm to the environment

---

You're planning to move near the pipeline, to admire it daily once it's complete? or it's wonderful as long as it's NIMBY?

Yes, most of the jobs will be temporary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

You're planning to move near the pipeline, to admire it daily once it's complete? or it's wonderful as long as it's NIMBY?

Yes, most of the jobs will be temporary.

---

Care to back that up with reliable stats? Perhaps the entire construction industry should just close up... same with the steel fabrication industry because all of those jobs are always temproray too... until the next contract comes in.

That pipeline isn't in your back yard either. I'm actually closer to a lot of petrolium and major natural gas pipelines than probibly most people are. I'm within 20 miles of two major regional tank farms one of them only about 5 miles away. All supplied by pipelines..(which are actually a LOT closer in some cases) . its carried away in trucks to its destinations...

The only time there is a problem its usually some idoit in a backhoe responsible. Around here they are buried....the above ground ones are a lot easier to inspect and detect a problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

And the jobs are only temporary -- done at great (permanent) risk to the U.S. environment and residents.

---

Is the environmental risk greater for this pipeline than for others? There are currently 2.6 million miles of pipelines in the US, and by all estimates pipleines are safer than other means of transport such as truck or rail, and certainly more efficient - hence less carbon dioxide put in the air for those of you who are concerned about that. I have to wonder if the "great risk" is really that great. Would you ban all gas and oil pipelines in the US?

Do you live near a pipeline that's leaked for who knows how long?

BP Lake Michigan Oil Spill: Did Tar Sands Spill Into the Great Lake? | Steve Horn

Quote:

---

With a drinking water source for seven million people at stake, this "tar sands name game" is one with high stakes indeed.

---

Think its easier to slow a train down than clean a river, lake or water source? I got links to oil spills from every state darn near so you tell me what's the cause and effects of profits from fossil fuels.

I have a better idea... All the people opposed to the pipeline be legally required to register... and then they will be denied acces to any and all petrolium products since they feel they are so aweful and evil.....they shouldn't be usiung them themselves.


See how many are willing to practice what they preach.

How about the people who have to have water trucked in?

Hmmmm, I drink Lake Michigan water.