Report: Keystone pipeline would have minimal environmental impact

Shorebased
1

This just in from NBC News:

[U][B]Report: Keystone pipeline would have minimal environmental impact[/B][/U]
[B][I]
By Michael O’Brien, NBC News
[/I][/B]A new State Department report on the proposed Keystone XL oil pipeline finds that the project would have a minimal impact on the environment, an assessment likely to increase pressure on the White House to approve it. But the report sets no deadline for doing so.

Given this evaluation of environmental impact, President Barack Obama and his administration will face increased pressure to approve the project, which enjoys widespread support among Republicans, and some measure of support among Democrats and allies of the administration, like labor unions.

The proposed pipeline would carry crude derived from oil sands in Canada to refineries in the United States.

“Our national interest will be served only if this project does not significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution,” Obama said in June of 2013. “The net effects of the pipeline’s impact on our climate will be absolutely critical to determining whether this project is allowed to go forward.”

The findings by the new State Department report could hasten a decision by the administration, though there is no hard and fast deadline by which Obama or Secretary of State John Kerry must act. The evaluation fell to the State Department because the proposed $7 billion project by TransCanada Corp would cross the U.S.-Canada border.

Quickly after the report’s release, lawmakers ratcheted up pressure on Obama to act.

“Mr. President, no more stalling– no more excuses,” said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. “Please pick up that pen you’ve been talking so much about and make this happen. Americans need these jobs.”

Centrist Democrats like West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin hailed the findings, as well.

“I have been incredibly frustrated for more than five years by the repeated and unnecessary delays in moving forward with the construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline,” he said. “I am pleased the State Department has confirmed there is no evidence of any negative environmental impact from building this pipeline.”

Environmentally-minded Democrats said the report paid insufficient attention to the environmental impacts of extracting the oil in the first place.

“I will not be satisfied with any analysis that does not accurately document what is really happening on the ground when it comes to the extraction, transport, refining, and waste disposal of dirty, filthy tar sands oil,” said Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., chairwoman of the Senate panel that oversees environmental issues.

Kerry said earlier in January that he hoped to move along with his own consideration of the process quickly, though he signaled that he doesn’t feel pressure to move before various analyses are complete.

“We are doing it, and I can promise our friends in Canada that all the appropriate effort is being put into trying to get this done effectively and rapidly,” Kerry said Jan. 17 during an appearance with his Canadian counterpart. “And my hope is that, before long, that analysis will be available, and then my work begins.”

Following the release of Friday’s report, what’s known as a “comment period” will take place; a comment period allow both government agencies and the public as a whole to offer their input about a proposed rule or regulation. The Keystone report will open up a 30-day comment period for the public, and a comment period for relevant government agencies of up to 90 days.

“I’d stress, this is only one factor in a determination that will weigh many other factors as well,” State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf said at a briefing on Friday. “And for Secretary Kerry, climate and environmental priorities will of course be part of his decision making, as will a range of other issues.”

The project could also conceivably figure into political considerations for Obama. Republicans in Congress have long demanded his approval for the project. Free of major environmental objections to it, the president could conceivably extract a desired vote or policy from GOP lawmakers in exchange for giving construction of the pipeline a green light.

Impact on us as an industry? Positive? Negative? Neutral? I’ve heard it told all sorts of ways but haven’t made up my mind for myself yet. I’m interested in hearing what you fine gentlemen, and the eminent Ms. Catherder, have to say.

2

What does that dumbass Barbara Boxer think we’re going to do? Tell Canada they can’t get their “dirty filthy tar sands” out of their own sovereign ground??

3

[QUOTE=PaddyWest2012;129715]This just in from NBC News:

Impact on us as an industry? Positive? Negative? Neutral? I’ve heard it told all sorts of ways but haven’t made up my mind for myself yet. I’m interested in hearing what you fine gentlemen, and the eminent Ms. Catherder, have to say.[/QUOTE]

Oh, lawd.

I can’t stop it so all I can do is pray and hope that the pipeline is maintained well and that they don’t have a major spill in somebody’s town square…

Of course, I’m a (halfarsed) Buddhist so God don’t listen to me anyhoo but maybe he’ll listen to someone.

I need to read up on the pipeline and the route. Didn’t someone already ask why the tarsands oil couldn’t be shipped through the Glakes?? Why don’t we have a piece o’ dat pie?

4

I’m usually pretty pro environment, but hey if the report says minimal impact then get on with it already. Pipe lines are a valuable transportation resource and there’s already thousands of miles of pipeline transversing the country.
As for our industry I’m not sure how much tar sands are transported over the water, but I think it would still slightly depress demand. So maybe slightly less marine traffic of unrefined petroleum? But Domestic LNG is also working to depress petroleum imports too. So it might not be too big of an impact.

5

My question is this. If this tar sand stuff is so great why don’t they refine it themselves right up there in Canada? They could build a pipeline to anywhere in Canada they want. Something just doesn’t seem right about this as I keep hearing the US refineries run all out most of the time now. I guess we should track the money on this one and see where it leads.

6

[QUOTE=tengineer1;129755]My question is this. If this tar sand stuff is so great why don’t they refine it themselves right up there in Canada? They could build a pipeline to anywhere in Canada they want. Something just doesn’t seem right about this as I keep hearing the US refineries run all out most of the time now. I guess we should track the money on this one and see where it leads.[/QUOTE]

My brief look into this says it is a sweet deal for the people that own Transcanada, the oil companies and the refineries. They get to ship this tar sand stuff cheap to refineries in a duty free trade zone in Texas from where it can be turned into diesel primarily and exported from the duty free zone on the same tankers they are exporting on now. Once the pipeline is finished there will be few jobs gained [until the pipe springs a leak] as no more refineries will be built, they will just be replacing oil from South America with this cheaper stuff from Canada. For the average citizen there will be little or no gain in tax revenue and the price of gas sure isn’t going to drop due to this stuff. This tar sand crap is nasty and not like regular crude. It is very corrosive to pipes and leaks much more often, has a record of causing leaks pretty quick. When it does leak it is a real pain to clean up as it is a different animal from crude. Example; if tar sand gets into water it sinks, it doesn’t float.
In the interest of full disclosure; Valero which I own stock in says they will make more money once they can get more of this tar sand . I may be able to hire another Mexican to help out on the farm so there is another job created right there !

7

It leads to exporting it overseas. It was never going to stay in North America. All the talk from the right about needing Keystone for energy independence is BS, it is being sold elsewhere.

9

My view is that No crude oil, diesel, or gasoline, should be exported outside of North America. We need it all right here to provide lower prices and energy independence. If they want to export value-added chemicals that’s fine. Natural gas exports should be allowed in small quantities for a few years to help develop more gas production capacity. In the future we should save it all for our own needs.

New refineries should be built in Alberta and North Dakota. They should keep the refining jobs and income right there.

The Keystone pipeline should be approved immediately, provided that neither the crude nor the diesel and gasoline products produced from it are exported outside North America. Similar to the restrictions on TransAlaska Pipeline oil.

Why force Canada to build a pipeline to Kitimat and ship all its oil to China?

10

[QUOTE=tugsailor;129783]

The Keystone pipeline should be approved immediately, provided that neither the crude nor the diesel and gasoline products produced from it are exported outside North America. Similar to the restrictions on TransAlaska Pipeline oil.

Why force Canada to build a pipeline to Kitimat and ship all its oil to China?[/QUOTE]

The restrictions on TransAlaska pipeline oil was lifted around 1998.
No one is forcing Canada to do a thing. Transcanada is a corporation that is no more owned by Canada than Exxon is owned by the USA. Whatever is produced from the Keystone pipeline may well be shipped to China or any other buyer that wants it and thru a duty free trade zone in Texas! The more I look at it the more I think that this is one big boondoggle that when it all goes to crap the US taxpayer will be forced to clean up. This is some really seriously nasty stuff to run thru a pipe and the track record of pumping it isn’t that great. It is being shipped now via rail so the only reason in the world for the pipeline is to lower transportation costs which will benefit no one except those that own stock in either the corporation producing the stuff, the companies buying it or the refiners. As a stockholder of one of the oil companies the increased profit will benefit me but as a citizen this deal strikes me as corporate socialism. Privatized profits with the public covering the risk.

11

[QUOTE=tengineer1;129755]My question is this. If this tar sand stuff is so great why don’t they refine it themselves right up there in Canada? They could build a pipeline to anywhere in Canada they want. Something just doesn’t seem right about this as I keep hearing the US refineries run all out most of the time now. I guess we should track the money on this one and see where it leads.[/QUOTE]

Valero has 7 oil refineries in Texas. It has 1 in Canada. Also, the bitumen is much more difficult to refine and none of the Canadian refineries have the capability, so Valero would have to build a new refinery. I can imagine that piping it to Texas is much much cheaper than building a new refinery just for bitumen. Upgrading a refinery in Montreal to have the equipment to refine bitumen would run about 2 billion. The US has 134 refineries total, and 59 of them are already equipped for bitumen.

12

I know this thread is from two weeks ago but I thought this was an interesting update to the proceedings:

[B]Nebraska Judge Nixes Keystone Pipeline Approval[/B]
BY VAUGHN HILLYARD

As pressure mounts on the Obama administration to approve construction of the Keystone XL pipeline, a Nebraska judge has struck down a law that would have allowed the project to proceed in that state.

The Nebraska Legislature approved a bill in 2012 that shifted building authorization power away from the state’s elected Public Service Commission and toward Republican Gov. Dave Heineman.

After that legislation passed, Heineman gave eminent domain powers to pipeline builders TransCanada. Lancaster County Judge Stephanie Stacy says the governor didn’t have the power to approve the route under the state’s constitution.

“This stalls the project for sure,” said Dave Domina, the lawyer representing three Nebraska landowners where parts of the pipeline would run. “It’s not authorized in Nebraska. There’s no power of eminent domain that can be exercised here. It’s back to the drawing board.”

On Wednesday evening, Heineman announced the state attorney general’s office would be appealing the ruling to the Nebraska Court of Appeals. Based on the judge’s ruling, the state could also:

Have the legislature approve the project itself, convening a special session, if necessary, to move the measure along.
Watch the process play-out through the Public Service Commission, as it would have before the 2012 vote shifting powering to Heineman.
In a statement, TransCanada spokesman Shawn Howard said: “We are disappointed and disagree with the decision. We will now analyze the judgment and decide what next steps may be taken.”

The Nebraska attorney general’s office has not responded to NBC News’ requests for comment.

Domina told NBC News the state legislature did not originally give itself the authority because the legislature has not taken up such a measure in the state’s history.

“The reason they didn’t keep it themselves is it would take a statute that would fully occupy the field, would be very long, very extensive, very regulatory,” Domina said. “It’s not what our Legislature has historically done. And it’s not what any good Legislature would probably do.”

13

Whats the big deal? This thing is already built except for phase IV. Its all just political thunder. Oil is already coming from canada to texas through the keystone pipeline.

14

Tim Colton’s blog got me thinking about this topic again, so I’ll bring this post back to life. He offers an interesting concept but I can only imagine the environmental backlash if this was seriously proposed.

http://www.coltoncompany.com/

Who Needs Pipelines?
Those folks who are opposed to the Keystone pipeline need their heads examining, but, however that argument turns out, we still have the challenge of getting all that crude out of the Dakotas safely and efficiently. Let’s consider the alternatives. The cheapest and safest solution is pipelines, but nobody seems to like pipelines. The next cheapest and safest is barge transportation, but nobody’s talking barges, they’ve skipped ahead to rail, which is significantly more expensive and apparently not all that safe. So, why not barges? The Missouri River rises in western Montana and comes pouring down through the Dakotas until, two thousand miles later, it runs into the Mississippi. At one time it was navigable pretty much the whole way but now it’s described as navigable only from Sioux City on down: what would it take to extend the waterway up to Pierre, or even to Bismarck? Has anyone looked at that? Anyway, why wait? Let’s start moving crude on barges. We don’t need to move it all: start modestly and demonstrate that barges beat railcars any day of the week. So, ok then. February 27, 2014.

There was some chatter about moving oil via rail to Churchill (west coast of Hudson Bay) and shipping east with ice-classed tankers, potentially bypassing the US altogether. Of course there are some heavy technical challenges to be resolved but economic comparisons with Keystone XL and a pipeline to BC suggested that the Churchill rail/tanker option would be attractive. In fact last fall there was a trail run planned but it was axed in light of the Lac-Mégantic incident, possibly to be postponed for the future.

15

[QUOTE=coldstack;131868]Tim Colton’s blog got me thinking about this topic again, so I’ll bring this post back to life. He offers an interesting concept but I can only imagine the environmental backlash if this was seriously proposed.

http://www.coltoncompany.com/

There was some chatter about moving oil via rail to Churchill (west coast of Hudson Bay) and shipping east with ice-classed tankers, potentially bypassing the US altogether. Of course there are some heavy technical challenges to be resolved but economic comparisons with Keystone XL and a pipeline to BC suggested that the Churchill rail/tanker option would be attractive. In fact last fall there was a trail run planned but it was axed in light of the Lac-Mégantic incident, possibly to be postponed for the future.[/QUOTE]

I brought this discussion up weeks ago and was shouted down by some grumpy-guses who thought the idea of water-borne transportation that far into the interior of the country was just plain silly. I was for it then and I’m for it now. This country should be making judicious use of every potential water way that ever once was or even could be someday.

16

[QUOTE=PaddyWest2012;131871]I brought this discussion up weeks ago and was shouted down by some grumpy-guses who thought the idea of water-borne transportation that far into the interior of the country was just plain silly. I was for it then and I’m for it now. This country should be making judicious use of every potential water way that ever once was or even could be someday.[/QUOTE]

US shipyards should be able to build a fleet of barges, right?

17

[QUOTE=coldstack;131887]US shipyards should be able to build a fleet of barges, right?[/QUOTE]

For shit’s sake, we should already have the barges to do this!