General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums9 Democrats signed letter urging quick approval of Keystone XL pipeline
The Obama administration has twice thwarted the 1,700-mile pipeline, which Calgary-based TransCanada first proposed in late 2008. The State Department delayed the project in late 2011 after environmental groups and others raised concerns about a proposed route through environmentally sensitive land in Nebraska.The State Department said Tuesday it does not expect to complete a review of the project before the end of March. The State Department has jurisdiction over the pipeline because it crosses a U.S. border.
At a news conference Wednesday, senators from both parties said the Nebraska decision leaves Obama with no other choice but to approve the pipeline, which would carry up to 800,000 barrels of oil a day from tar sands in western Canada to refineries in Houston and other Texas ports. The pipeline also would travel though Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas and Oklahoma.
"No more excuses. It's time to put people to work," Baucus said.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_OIL_PIPELINE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-01-23-18-07-43
Manchin and Baucus are 2 of the senators. Baucus claims the Keystone will create thousands of jobs. Cornell University researched it and begs to differ.
"It is GLI's assessment that the construction of Keystone XL will create far fewer jobs in the U.S. than its proponents have claimed and may actually destroy more jobs than it generates," Sweeney said.
http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/news/092811_GLI_study_finds_Keystone_XL_pipeline_will_create_few_jobs.html
CaliforniaPeggy
(149,614 posts)Are they blue dogs?
The pipeline is an environmental boondoggle, a complete mess. I despair for our environment should it be built over our precious water resources.
octoberlib
(14,971 posts)but haven't had any luck yet. Damn corporate Dems.
RC
(25,592 posts)You know 3rd Way? Center Right? Bought and paid for just like Republicans.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Forget about all those fancy "civilization collapse" woo-woo scenarios which are being bandied about by some of our more out-there fellows around here. The mere possibility of a spill contaminating parts of the Ogallala aquifer and possibly poisoning thousands, and the fact that there's not even any safeguards in place, and the fact that most of it is going to Mussolinian corporatist China anyway, should be more than enough for people to oppose this disaster in the making, James Hansen's way-out-of-left-field one-time statement notwithstanding(hey, no offense, he's a decent fellow and a good scientist. But even the best boffin isn't perfect, and will make mistakes every so often.).
Historic NY
(37,449 posts)CaliforniaPeggy
(149,614 posts)It's a toxic sludge so thick that it won't flow unless it's thinned with more toxic chemicals. Disgusting.
kentauros
(29,414 posts)and it's not a sludge in its natural form. Bitumen (also known as asphalt, but not the paving material, which is a form of concrete using asphalt as one of its ingredients) is at the lowest level in the cracking/distillation process of crude oil. Crude has to be "cracked" for us to get the fuels and chemicals we use out of it. At the bottom of the process you get tar and asphalt, with tar being "lighter".
For them to send the bitumen through the pipe, it is partially refined to a slurry, mostly to get the impurities and solid matter, like sand, out of it. If they left it in, it would clog the pipe and nothing would flow. It is also heated (to 150C) to flow through the pipe, because otherwise, it would be a solid if not heated
(edited to add: actually the chemistry of it is rather fascinating. The Wiki link is worth reading
2naSalit
(86,595 posts)is one of my DINO Senators, and he's always been on the wrong side of we the people. He might as well have signed up as a Repug. He's anti environment, anti wildlife... unless you can legally kill it, anti anything that helps retain the health of the ecosystem, biosphere... a total sellout. I won't be voting for his sorry ass, ever. I only voted for his cohort, Tester because it was crucial to keep D's in the majority in the Senate, and for no other reason because there was no other sane reason for voting for him and only insane reasons to vote for that ignoramus teabagger that was running against him. Baucus married into his wealth, even though he tried to get his mistress appointed to the Justice Dept. in a big position, so they wouldn't end up poor? Worthless POS he is. He has no intention of listening to reason either.
Check this out:
Legislator: Montana university officials must promote natural resource development
http://www.ravallirepublic.com/news/state-and-regional/montana-legislature/article_d15f28e9-40f6-5623-a108-bf7653c9172d.html
octoberlib
(14,971 posts)I'm from NC and I'm not surprised Kay Hagan is on that list. She's a DINO too.
2naSalit
(86,595 posts)and the one House member, we have such a low population in the state that we only have one (!) is a teabagging bimbo, no offense to bimbos.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Ugh! Time to call these Senators out.
Max Baucus (D-Mont.)
Mark Begich (D-Alaska)
Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.)
Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.)
Mary Landrieu (D-La.) J
Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.)
Mark Pryor (D-Ark.)
Mark Warner (D-Va.)
Kay Hagan (D-N.C.)
Link to letter here: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/24/us/obama-is-urged-to-approve-oil-pipeline.html
Senator Reid and the rest of the Democratic caucus should reject this.
octoberlib
(14,971 posts)Rhiannon12866
(205,320 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)OldDem2012
(3,526 posts)....the states in this illustration:
So, tell me why the 7 Dem Senators from Alaska, Indiana, Louisiana, West Virginia, Arkansas, Virginia, and North Carolina think this is such a good idea for their respective states?
octoberlib
(14,971 posts)nc4bo
(17,651 posts)She getting lots of comments on her Facebook page.
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)similarly with Manchin (coal). Then you have the states along the route (MT and ND). And then you have some dyed-in-the-wool DINOs (there is considerable overlap there).
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)Why oh Why does this not surprise me...
Mary, you have wrecked your own state, a good portion of Alabama, Mississippi and Florida, by whoring yourself out to Oil.. Yes, that is not a feminist word, but considering the amount of DEAD people this woman has on her hands, I will bend the rules.
These seven should be tossed out of the party, as they are at best, dead wight, at worst, backstabbers.
cbrer
(1,831 posts)this pipeline will require to heat it to allow this sludge to flow?
Especially in the northern states (and Canada) during winter?
This is a bad idea that will push us closer to the edge concerning climate change. JOBS?? One cannot eat money...
octoberlib
(14,971 posts)octoberlib
(14,971 posts)jambo101
(797 posts)As thats what it becomes after being extracted from the shale and sent on its way through pipelines. Much of the Keystone pipeline has been up and running for some time,its the XL extensions that are whats causing a redefinition of the routes due to environmental concerns .Once finished it will add an additional one million barrels a day to Americas need for 25 million barrels a day.
Some good reading on the project and its history can be had on Wikipedia.
[link:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keystone_Pipeline|
kentauros
(29,414 posts)It will be connecting to the refineries along the Houston Ship Channel for further refinement, only to then be shipped to China and elsewhere overseas. All we get from it is some temporary jobs for the designing and building of it, some permanent maintenance and leak-detection jobs, and more work for the existing people in the refinery plants.
We're nothing more than a route and Right of Way out of Canada.
Cha
(297,196 posts)I thought this was interesting about Kerry..
Thank you octoberlib
raouldukelives
(5,178 posts)This would be one of them. A baby step. But you gotta start somewhere and take a stand for something. Stand with Wall St and the deniers or stand with the environment. You can't do both. Not anymore, not with what we see happening.
And really, the President is demanding it of us. To be the change we want to see. To press onward into a brighter future.
I am heartened to hear of vigorous action around the bend more than I can say. My hopes remain high but I do fear vigorous may be a bit of stretch. Instead of vigorous just do small things like ending the pipeline, downsizing the military and turning the golf courses into sustainable farmlands. A few baby steps can add up before we even get to vigorous actions like tearing down shopping centers, replanting millions of acres of forests & finally shutting down the practice of turning irreplaceable gifts of the earth into mulch for cocaine parties and retirement funds.
Morning Dew
(6,539 posts)what could possibly go wrong?
octoberlib
(14,971 posts)Morning Dew
(6,539 posts)Good thread - thanks for the information.
Melinda
(5,465 posts)The pollyanna in me prefers to stay away from bad news threads, but seeing you makes it worth the icks.... Hiya Ms. Dew, welcome back!!!
My face is cracking from this huge ass smile you brought me!!!
Morning Dew
(6,539 posts)Always, always, always good to see you
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)NickB79
(19,236 posts)What with the increasingly scarce rainfall to water the crops and livestock.
By the time we get a big spill, there won't be any water left to pollute. See, problem solved!
RC
(25,592 posts)What I don't get is why Canada doesn't refine this shit and ship is from their West coast. Used the money saves by not building the pipeline to build the necessary refineries.
kentauros
(29,414 posts)Even as this is a $7 billion project for them, that's still less than what it would cost to go through the Canadian Rockies. Building pipelines through rock, as well as pumping up and over mountains, costs much more, even if the route is shorter.
I suspect that if they can't make the connection across the US/Canadian border that they'll try to build the pipeline to the west. And if they can't do that, they'll find another route or means. If they're willing to invest that much money just for the route through our country, I don't see them as giving up easily if thwarted here.
RC
(25,592 posts)Thanks.
kentauros
(29,414 posts)I'm not for this pipeline, either. I actually did some mapping work on it, and only took that job because I had been out of work for about a year. As soon as there was a slowdown of work, I was laid off. I'm now working for a surveying company, doing similar work. Basically, I know pipelines and much of the design surrounding them and other petro-chemical processes. I'm glad to be able to offer my knowledge on this subject
laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)It's called the Northern Gateway pipeline and they are trying to push it through. BC is mostly against it, but I have a feeling they have their price...the First Nations, however, will be the ones who stop it, IMO.
The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)His admin, even when denying it, was pretty mum about letting certain things be grandfathered in if there was a new application.
They could have denied that and caused many years' delay but did not do so.
I hope I am wrong and people can remind me of being wrong - but I don't think I am.
He could have, early on, just denied it and did not.
customerserviceguy
(25,183 posts)he's been able to keep both sides pacified, if not actually happy, by giving enough mixed signals that he would come down on "my" side, whatever the position of the voter happened to be. We're coming to the end of that, at some point, I expect the GOP to figure out how to put Keystone into must-pass legislation, and the Senators whose names are on that letter will be joining them.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)This is a well-orchestrated game.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022250081#post30
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)You just got to hope that there is NO cheating on the permits like there was with the now famous Gulf disaster and the crashed on the coastline oil rigs in Alaska and the bitamin spills on the Yellow river disaster they haven't even cleaned up yet!
pansypoo53219
(20,976 posts)like 'global warming', i think MORE STUDIES NEED TO BE DONE.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Global warming is a reality, Pansy......maybe not the apocalyptic, inevitably civilization-ending humanity-killing event as some nuttier people here would put it, but it is still a reality, and one that needs to be dealt with. And also, there's been plenty of studies done on Keystone XL, too: It won't create jobs, nor will it really lower our dependence on foreign oil, because most of it is being exported to China, a country run by criminally insane so-called "Communist" more like Mussolinian) maniacs, and incompetent boobs.
think
(11,641 posts)Last edited Thu Jan 24, 2013, 11:05 AM - Edit history (1)
support it.
From the environmentally damaging tar sand removal; to transporting it over parts of one of the largest aquifers in the world; to getting to avoid taxes in a foreign trade zone in Texas due to loopholes this project is a fucking boondoggle....
DallasNE
(7,403 posts)So to me it is still premature to green light this project. Below is what I posted when it was announced that the Nebraska Governor has given his blessing to the revised route.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=376977
gtar100
(4,192 posts)it. I've heard study after study conclude that not only is this *not* that great of a job creation project, but also that it's dangerous for the environment and none of the oil production will be of benefit to the US. I've heard that the oil, after it is refined in the south, will be shipped overseas. And I've heard that this source of oil, the tar sands, is one of the dirtiest, most polluting sources of energy we could possibly use. Am I wrong? Have I been fooled by environmental extremists hell-bent on an agenda of clean air, water, and land?
With all that, we have "leaders" in this country who somehow come to the conclusion that this pipeline is actually a good thing. How do they justify that to themselves?
I know, it's a rhetorical question. They are congressmen after all. A profession that attracts a disproportionate number of people who couldn't care less how stupid they act as long as they are making money. Assholes. No surprise that Baucus is one of them. He's stretches the meaning of "Democrat" beyond recognition. Seriously, he's no Democrat.
UnrepentantLiberal
(11,700 posts)let the good times roll!
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)It's crazy to pipeline it thousands of miles to a texas refinary!!
kentauros
(29,414 posts)Petro-chemical refineries take years to design and build from scratch. They don't just have pre-existing designs and modular units waiting to be put in place and built. Every single plant out there is a custom-build.
I'm sure TransCanada didn't see this project as any different than all the other millions of miles of pipelines all throughout this continent, and were expecting a quick design and build to existing refineries. As that hasn't happened, I would suspect some of their executives have wondered why they didn't just build new plants up there and find another route.
However, as I've said already, a route through the Canadian Rockies would have been far costlier and time-consuming than the route they picked through us. There's a lot more to the design, construction, and operation of a pipeline than simply pumping a liquid through some hollow steel cylinders
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)They have their own refinaries in Canada, or have china build a refinary= they are the buyers! and can ship refined sludge from the (now open due to global warming) NW passage.
or move that sludge to Alaska ports and existing refinaries. That's closest to the huge russian oil fields anyways.
America also has thousands of miles of existing!! pipelines, no need at all to take the risk of a disaster or build new pipelines.
Someone must be pushing this NEW pipeline and Texas refinary because of personal private profits. Nothing good for America at all and the risk is way to high.
kentauros
(29,414 posts)But, they're in use! New pipelines are being designed and built every day for all sorts of products, and, unless you're running either an inert gas, or natural gas through a particular pipeline, it can't be used for crude oil or other liquid products. The pumping needs and pressures are different as are the seals, valves, and steel thicknesses. I know this because I'm in that industry.
And I stand behind my post that TransCanada was expecting an "easy" time for this pipeline and why they didn't build new refineries up there. Design alone for new refineries takes at least two years. Construction takes at least another full year. That's a minimum of three years for a new refinery when they were expecting their pipeline project to last no more than two years, start to finish. Why build new when you can use existing?
NickB79
(19,236 posts)If we build this monstrosity. The amount of carbon that all that refined tar sand oil will put out over the next few decades will single-handedly push us past the point of no return, and ensure that human civilization comes to a crashing end within a century as global temperatures go up 4-6C. Farmlands will be destroyed by drought, wildfires will eat up the forests, the seas will consume the coasts, the oceans will die as they acidify, and humanity will see the worst die-off of our species in our evolutionary history. We are setting into motion the worst mass extinction since the end of the age of dinosaurs.
But fuck that, we could sell that black gold to the Chinese for $100/barrel! WOOOO-WEEEEE!!!!
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)I mean, come on, we have REAL issues to be concerned about with this, and not some fantastical scenario that sounds like the plot from a bad '80s B-movie(and I say this as a B-Movie aficionado, btw.) or pulp novel.
earthside
(6,960 posts)We are already past the point of no return on greenhouses gases in the atmosphere.
Every month or so it seems we get a new report of the 'unexpected' acceleration of the impacts of global warming.
The real question is just how this climate change is going to affect us, humans (and we are going to find out).
The Keystone pipeline project and the development of tar sands is also all that you need to verify Peak Oil. The only way this pipeline is viable, just as fracking for shale oil, is that the price per barrel makes it economically feasible. In other words, the cheap oil is indeed running out making unconventionally produced petroleum fiscally viable.
We ain't seen nothin' yet ... it is going to look like a slow motion B-movie (and that's hoping for the slow motion part).
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Every month or so it seems we get a new report of the 'unexpected' acceleration of the impacts of global warming
You do realize this is a bit of an exaggeration, right(a lot of this does have to do with confirmation bias, btw)? Not only that, but in fact, there's actually been at least a couple of reports I've come across that actually suggest otherwise. Here's a Met Office statement for you, btw:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2013/01/met-office-scale-back-global-w.shtml
And just so you understand, this doesn't undermine the importance of combatting AGW. But we do need to keep cool heads as much as possible; paranoia and gnashing our teeth about the supposedly inevitable "end", never solved anything, TBH; same was true for getting rid of ozone-destroying CFCs, and for combatting air pollution, and the same goes for AGW, too.
Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)Is the Sierra Club exaggerating when they say this:
http://ecowatch.org/2013/civil-disobedience-stop-tar-sands/
NickB79
(19,236 posts)We all know that the credibility of NASA's pointman on global warming, and that of the world's largest environmental protection group, both pale in comparison to the opinion of a single poster on DU.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Gotta maintain the illusion of a party working against Big Oil. And we will be encouraged to vent fruitless anger against the villain of the moment. But the villain always changes, and we will never win.
Really, the game is elegantly orchestrated, isn't it?
http://www.salon.com/2010/02/23/democrats_34/
Tuesday, Feb 23, 2010 11:24 AM UTC
The Democratic Partys deceitful game
They are willing to bravely support any progressive bill as long as there's no chance it can pass
By Glenn Greenwald
....
Theyre willing to feign support for anything their voters want just as long as theres no chance that they can pass it.
...
The primary tactic in this game is Villain Rotation. They always have a handful of Democratic Senators announce that they will be the ones to deviate this time from the ostensible party position and impede success, but the designated Villain constantly shifts, so the Party itself can claim it supports these measures while an always-changing handful of their members invariably prevent it. One minute, its Jay Rockefeller as the Prime Villain leading the way in protecting Bush surveillance programs and demanding telecom immunity; the next minute, its Dianne Feinstein and Chuck Schumer joining hands and breaking with their party to ensure Michael Mukaseys confirmation as Attorney General; then its Big Bad Joe Lieberman single-handedly blocking Medicare expansion; then its Blanche Lincoln and Jim Webb joining with Lindsey Graham to support the de-funding of civilian trials for Terrorists; and now that they cant blame Lieberman or Ben Nelson any longer on health care (since they dont need 60 votes), Jay Rockefeller voluntarily returns to the Villain Role, stepping up to put an end to the pretend-movement among Senate Democrats to enact the public option via reconciliation.
The corporatists who work in both parties are very, very slick at what they do.
RandiFan1290
(6,232 posts)I suggest:
LisaLynne
(14,554 posts)As politics has become more and more show, I guess we shouldn't be shocked by it.
forestpath
(3,102 posts)leftstreet
(36,108 posts)octoberlib
(14,971 posts)Catherina
(35,568 posts)xchrom
(108,903 posts)grntuscarora
(1,249 posts)Join the #ForwardOnClimate Rally on 2/17!
At 12 Noon on Sunday, February 17, thousands of Americans will head to Washington, D.C. to make Forward on Climate the largest climate rally in history. Join this historic event to make your voice heard and help the president start his second term with strong climate action.up/presidentsday
The first step to putting our country on the path to addressing the climate crisis is for President Obama to reject the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline.
forestpath
(3,102 posts)and don't consider him a Democrat no matter what he calls himself.
Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)I received this email yesterday...the push is on. I doubt Kerry would approve it so they're trying to get it through while Hillary's still SoS. (You have to get SoS to sign off on the deal since it crosses international borders.) I guess we'll see soon enough if Obama is truly committed to cleaner energies and cutting carbon emissions. So far, he gets an F among environmental groups.
Some of you might wonder what took us so long. Others might wonder whether John Muir is sitting up in his grave. In fact, John Muir had both a deep appreciation for Thoreau and a powerful sense of right and wrong. And its the issue of right versus wrong that has brought the Sierra Club to this unprecedented decision.
For civil disobedience to be justified, something must be so wrong that it compels the strongest defensible protest. Such a protest, if rendered thoughtfully and peacefully, is in fact a profound act of patriotism. For Thoreau, the wrongs were slavery and the invasion of Mexico. For Martin Luther King, Jr., it was the brutal, institutionalized racism of the Jim Crow South. For us, it is the possibility that the U.S. might surrender any hope of stabilizing our planets climate.
As President Obama eloquently said during his inaugural address, You and I, as citizens, have the obligation to shape the debates of our time, not only with the votes we cast, but the voices we lift in defense of our most ancient values and enduring ideas.
As citizens, for us to give up on stopping runaway global temperatures would be all the more tragic if it happened at the very moment when we are seeing both tremendous growth in clean energy and firsthand evidence of what extreme weather can do. Last year, record heat and drought across the nation wiped out half of our corn crop and 60 percent of our pasturelands. Wildfires in Colorado, Texas, and elsewhere burned nearly nine million acres. And superstorm Sandy brought devastation beyond anyones imagining to the Eastern Seaboard.
We are watching a global crisis unfold before our eyes, and to stand aside and let it happeneven though we know how to stop itwould be unconscionable. As the president said on Monday, to do so would betray our children and future generations. It couldnt be simpler: Either we leave at least two-thirds of the known fossil fuel reserves in the ground, or we destroy our planet as we know it. Thats our choice, if you can call it that.
That means rejecting the dangerous tar sands pipeline that would transport some of the dirtiest oil on the planet, and other reckless fossil fuel projects from Northwest coal exports to Arctic drilling. It means following through on his pledge to double down again on clean energy, and cut carbon pollution from smokestacks across the country. And, perhaps most of all, it means standing up to the fossil fuel corporations that would drive us over the climate cliff without so much as a backward glance.
http://ecowatch.org/2013/civil-disobedience-stop-tar-sands/
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)I trust President Obama's administration to ensure that the project is environmentally safe.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)GoCubsGo
(32,083 posts)All these "less government" dummies who voted for the repugs and these corporate Democrats are going to be in for a big surprise when TransCanada Corp. decides to send that pipeline through THEIR property. It won't be their property for much longer. It's already happening:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/18/us/transcanada-in-eminent-domain-fight-over-pipeline.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
octoberlib
(14,971 posts)I read an article by a guy who hiked the pipeline and he said most US landowners he talked to were opposed to it but because of eminent
domain they feel like it's inevitable and unstoppable.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)we got a very clear view this week of what we are *really* dealing with.
The party that claims to represent us is working for the one percent just as surely as are corporate Republicans. Corporate Democrats are repeatedly, deliberately complicit in furthering the agenda of the one percent.
They play us like fools.
It's well past time to argue over *whether* it is happening, and instead figure out what we are going to do about it.
RandiFan1290
(6,232 posts)I'm also cursed with a great memory. 2000 seems like only yesterday and I remember everything.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)I have always said that the biggest problem corporate Democrats face (and corporate Republicans, too) is convincing the country that what they see with their own eyes and experience in their own lives, isn't really happening.
War is Peace.
Freedom is Slavery.
Ignorance is strength.
And the chained CPI will certainly increase the chocolate ration...
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)patrice
(47,992 posts)individual issues around playing revolution with Right Winger Obamaphobiacs, maybe there'd be enough of an authentic Left constituency now to be of consequence to Obama in re his response to this XL push. I'm not sure we matter now that the vote is done.
Issues are used to leverage for and against other issues in Congress, so XL is going up against at minimum tax reform, health care, and the right to organize, so I'm not feeling real hopeful especially with talk of alliance between MoveOn and the Tea Party, which may account for what was apparently not enough of a response from what calls itself "the Left" to support the possibility of a talking filibuster to convince Harry Reid to go for it.