Alternatives to Keystone Pipeline (1 Viewer)

[Gladiator]

I am interested in an economic debate, more than a Hysterical partisan diatribe, so I started this thread under Government Spending. Who Benefits from the spending on the Pipeline? What if the refining of Heavy Crude does not work out? Who is holding the Bag? Who is going to repay the government for the loans, if all the original oil companies go bankrupt?

There is talk of votes coming soon in the House and Senate. Republicans for, Democrats against, Obama hanging back.

So what is better for the economy. Pipeline construction jobs, Pipe manufacturing jobs, or

Train Car manufacturing jobs, and Railroad Jobs?

Jobs are jobs. What is so special about pipeline jobs?

Where is a balanced review of the Risks?




" train hauls crude oil in November 2013 through Montana. Proponents and opponents of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline extension disagree over whether rail would be an effective replacement for the pipeline.

"In the fight over the proposed Keystone XL pipeline extension, much has hinged on the role of rail. The question comes down to this: Can carloads of crude oil replace the $5.4 billion pipeline — which would stretch 1,200 miles from the tar sands, or oil sands, in Canada to refineries in the U.S. — if it is rejected by President Barack Obama?A State Department report released Jan. 31 said that they could.
“Cross-border pipeline constraints have a limited impact on crude flows and prices,” the report stated. “If new east-west and cross-border pipelines were both completely constrained, oil sands crude could reach U.S. and Canadian refineries by rail.”
Pipeline proponents almost immediately hailed the report's findings as a victory. Last year, Obama said he’d only approve the pipeline if it “does not significantly exacerbate the climate problem," and the report shows that the pipeline passes that “climate test,” Keystone advocates have argued. "

Experts: Rail a Feasible Alternative for Keystone XL - US News


Earlier Breaking News, Mainstream Media DP Threads:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...lls-plug-keystone-pipeline-send-oil-asia.html


http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...00-us-delays-review-keystone-xl-pipeline.html



Map of the pipeline

Keystone XL Pipeline Maps and Information | Keystone XL Pipeline


Info supporting Pipeline:

Keystone XL Pipeline |





//

 

[CycloneWanderer]

I am interested in an economic debate, more than a Hysterical partisan diatribe, so I started this thread under Government Spending. Who Benefits from the spending on the Pipeline? What if the refining of Heavy Crude does not work out? Who is holding the Bag? Who is going to repay the government for the loans, if all the original oil companies go bankrupt?

There is talk of votes coming soon in the House and Senate. Republicans for, Democrats against, Obama hanging back.

So what is better for the economy. Pipeline construction jobs, Pipe manufacturing jobs, or

Train Car manufacturing jobs, and Railroad Jobs?

Jobs are jobs. What is so special about pipeline jobs?

Where is a balanced review of the Risks?




" train hauls crude oil in November 2013 through Montana. Proponents and opponents of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline extension disagree over whether rail would be an effective replacement for the pipeline.

"In the fight over the proposed Keystone XL pipeline extension, much has hinged on the role of rail. The question comes down to this: Can carloads of crude oil replace the $5.4 billion pipeline — which would stretch 1,200 miles from the tar sands, or oil sands, in Canada to refineries in the U.S. — if it is rejected by President Barack Obama?A State Department report released Jan. 31 said that they could.
“Cross-border pipeline constraints have a limited impact on crude flows and prices,” the report stated. “If new east-west and cross-border pipelines were both completely constrained, oil sands crude could reach U.S. and Canadian refineries by rail.”
Pipeline proponents almost immediately hailed the report's findings as a victory. Last year, Obama said he’d only approve the pipeline if it “does not significantly exacerbate the climate problem," and the report shows that the pipeline passes that “climate test,” Keystone advocates have argued. "

Experts: Rail a Feasible Alternative for Keystone XL - US News


Earlier Breaking News, Mainstream Media DP Threads:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...lls-plug-keystone-pipeline-send-oil-asia.html


http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...00-us-delays-review-keystone-xl-pipeline.html



Map of the pipeline

Keystone XL Pipeline Maps and Information | Keystone XL Pipeline


Info supporting Pipeline:

Keystone XL Pipeline |

I think there is unanimous agreement within both industries that shipping oil by rail is more risky than shipping oil by pipeline. In terms of potential environmental loss, pipelines have a huge advantage. Railroads have benefitted from the lack of a pipeline, but their business has some significant challenge they have been dealing with and will be dealing with in the next few years. Coal traffic (which was a big percent of rail traffic) has dropped precipitously since the EPA started shutting down the coal industry. We used to take a lot of coal from the midwest coal states and ship it off the west coast to Asia. That doesn't happen anymore due to regulation. Now, Asia gets its coal from Australia (which has been rapidly building the inrfastructure it needs to increase their coal production/transportation). Because of our moratorium on coal, Australia's coal industry (and the rail traffic that goes with it) has boomed. Because of the lack of coal traffic, railroads are increasingly dependent on oil traffic and will lobby hard to protect their business.

Additionally, there are ever-increasing environmental regulation which the industry is adapting to. Chief among them is the Tier 4 EPA requirements on locomotive emissions that comes into effect next year. At this time, I haven't seen any evidence that a tier 4 compliant locomotive exists that will not result in a sizable decrease in fuel efficiency, which may lead to a significant increase in costs to operate railroads.

All-in-all, I think rail can replace the pipeline, but it will be more risky for the environment, more expensive for the consumers, and more susceptible to EPA/government regulatory interference.

 

[ttwtt78640]

The objection to increased oil is not the transport mechanism but the environmental issue. Arguing that rail is better than a pipeline for oil transport does not alter that objection.

Last year, Obama said he’d only approve the pipeline if it “does not significantly exacerbate the climate problem"

 

[longview]

To move 830,000 barrels of oil a day would require a little over 1000 rail tankers.
By rail it is likely a 2 day trip from Alberta to the gulf coast, each way, so it would
take 4000 rail tankers and 40 train crews to be in motion 24 by 7 to supply
the same amount of oil.

 

[Gladiator]

I think there is unanimous agreement within both industries that shipping oil by rail is more risky than shipping oil by pipeline. In terms of potential environmental loss, pipelines have a huge advantage. Railroads have benefitted from the lack of a pipeline, but their business has some significant challenge they have been dealing with and will be dealing with in the next few years. Coal traffic (which was a big percent of rail traffic) has dropped precipitously since the EPA started shutting down the coal industry. We used to take a lot of coal from the midwest coal states and ship it off the west coast to Asia. That doesn't happen anymore due to regulation. Now, Asia gets its coal from Australia (which has been rapidly building the inrfastructure it needs to increase their coal production/transportation). Because of our moratorium on coal, Australia's coal industry (and the rail traffic that goes with it) has boomed. Because of the lack of coal traffic, railroads are increasingly dependent on oil traffic and will lobby hard to protect their business.

Additionally, there are ever-increasing environmental regulation which the industry is adapting to. Chief among them is the Tier 4 EPA requirements on locomotive emissions that comes into effect next year. At this time, I haven't seen any evidence that a tier 4 compliant locomotive exists that will not result in a sizable decrease in fuel efficiency, which may lead to a significant increase in costs to operate railroads.

All-in-all, I think rail can replace the pipeline, but it will be more risky for the environment, more expensive for the consumers, and more susceptible to EPA/government regulatory interference.

Why does the US Government need to get involved? Eminent Domain, Years to payback from the profits? Is this a loan? Some Indian Nations object tot he pipeline. What are their rights? Will the US be paid back? How?


What about Oil Sands?

"In-situ production methods are used on bitumen deposits buried too deep for mining to be economically recovered. These techniques include steam injection, solvent injection, and firefloods, in which oxygen is injected and part of the resource burned to provide heat. So far steam injection has been the favoured method. Some of these extraction methods require large amounts of both water and energy (for heating and pumping).

Both mining and processing of tar sands involve a variety of environmental impacts, such as global warming and greenhouse gas emissions, disturbance of mined land; impacts on wildlife and air and water quality. The development of a commercial tar sands industry in the U.S. would also have significant social and economic impacts on local communities. Of special concern in the relatively arid western United States is the large amount of water required for tar sands processing; currently, tar sands extraction and processing require several barrels of water for each barrel of oil produced, though some of the water can be recycled."


Tar Sands Basics




//

 

[lizzie]

I Jobs are jobs. What is so special about pipeline jobs?

Generally, they seem to be exceptionally well-paying, considering the skill level required, and they tend to be fairly long-term and stable employment.

Rather than speaking of alternatives, why not do both?

 

[Gladiator]

To move 830,000 barrels of oil a day would require a little over 1000 rail tankers.
By rail it is likely a 2 day trip from Alberta to the gulf coast, each way, so it would
take 4000 rail tankers and 40 train crews to be in motion 24 by 7 to supply
the same amount of oil.

So there are more jobs needed for building a pipeline, than for running trains?

//

 

[CycloneWanderer]

Why does the US Government need to get involved? Eminent Domain, Years to payback from the profits? Is this a loan? Some Indian Nations object tot he pipeline. What are their rights? Will the US be paid back? How?


What about Oil Sands?

"In-situ production methods are used on bitumen deposits buried too deep for mining to be economically recovered. These techniques include steam injection, solvent injection, and firefloods, in which oxygen is injected and part of the resource burned to provide heat. So far steam injection has been the favoured method. Some of these extraction methods require large amounts of both water and energy (for heating and pumping).

Both mining and processing of tar sands involve a variety of environmental impacts, such as global warming and greenhouse gas emissions, disturbance of mined land; impacts on wildlife and air and water quality. The development of a commercial tar sands industry in the U.S. would also have significant social and economic impacts on local communities. Of special concern in the relatively arid western United States is the large amount of water required for tar sands processing; currently, tar sands extraction and processing require several barrels of water for each barrel of oil produced, though some of the water can be recycled."


Tar Sands Basics

If you wanted to avoid hyperpartisan diatribe, this post does not help. You realize, of course, that emminent domain was commonly used to build the rail infrastructure? I thought you wanted a decent conversation about the transportation of this stuff, not a hyperpartisan diatribe on whether it should be collected in the first place.

 

[longview]

So there are more jobs needed for building a pipeline, than for running trains?

//

I was just looking at how many trains it would take.
The up front jobs for building the pipeline is big,
The operations jobs for processing and transportation of the oil would be
lower for the pipeline, but there would be a lot of risk in loading and unloading
1000 tanker cars per day.

 

[Helix]

Alternatives to Keystone Pipeline

just build the damned thing and let everyone masturbate on it. this is a stupid hill to die on. i'm so tired of hearing people fight about it that i could puke. build the ****ing pipeline, and trade it for wind farm funding. this is how **** used to work in Washington before everyone went bat**** insane.

 

[WCH]

The Left has a fascination with trains. Not for hauling oil but, bodies

 

[CycloneWanderer]

just build the damned thing and let everyone masturbate on it. this is a stupid hill to die on. i'm so tired of hearing people fight about it that i could puke. build the ****ing pipeline, and trade it for wind farm funding. this is how **** used to work in Washington before everyone went bat**** insane.

Agreed. Another thing: I don't understand how environmental groups choose what to support anymore. They are opposed to the pipeline, while all the data is clear that transporting it by truck/train is more harmful to the environment. In this case they do it out of respect to individual animals hurt in the pipeline construction - a one-time event. However, wind farms have been proven to be consistently detrimental to migratory birds throughout the life of the mill (who would have thought that giant, unprotected spinning blades could kill things?). How is that any better?

 

[MMC]

Either way.....the Oil is going to flow from Canada. That's what we get.....that oil will make its way to the Gulf one way or another. Now the US can get in on the jobs and can build the pipeline. Which in return will reduce costs to the consumer. Or.....the US can lose the jobs and the benefits that come with it, and payer higher costs. That's the bottomline.

Demos and Repubs support it. Unions support it and so to the people. I don't think the State Dept denied that it will create jobs. Which it was their report, Right?

 

[Helix]

Agreed. Another thing: I don't understand how environmental groups choose what to support anymore. They are opposed to the pipeline, while all the data is clear that transporting it by truck/train is more harmful to the environment. In this case they do it out of respect to individual animals hurt in the pipeline construction - a one-time event. However, wind farms have been proven to be consistently detrimental to migratory birds throughout the life of the mill (who would have thought that giant, unprotected spinning blades could kill things?). How is that any better?

right now, the country is so politically insane that this formula can be applied with 95+ percent accuracy to all issues :

if the other half of the duopoly supports initiative X, then i am against initiative X. also, i harbor visceral hate for issue X.

 

[Helix]

Agreed. Another thing: I don't understand how environmental groups choose what to support anymore. They are opposed to the pipeline, while all the data is clear that transporting it by truck/train is more harmful to the environment. In this case they do it out of respect to individual animals hurt in the pipeline construction - a one-time event. However, wind farms have been proven to be consistently detrimental to migratory birds throughout the life of the mill (who would have thought that giant, unprotected spinning blades could kill things?). How is that any better?

addendum : while i agree with your statement for the most part, i am one hundred percent for the wind farms. they built one outside my town, and it has been a great thing for the city.

 

[Declan]

Once the idea of a pipeline sinks into the American discussion as a reality, it will reduce resistance to other types of pipelines--ok you got your oil pipeline, so we get our water pipeline, etc. I am indifferent to Keystone. The oil is going to spill somewhere. I would rather it be in flyover country than in the ocean.

 

[SlevinKelevra]

Once the idea of a pipeline sinks into the American discussion as a reality, it will reduce resistance to other types of pipelines--ok you got your oil pipeline, so we get our water pipeline, etc. I am indifferent to Keystone. The oil is going to spill somewhere. I would rather it be in flyover country than in the ocean.

It's almost as if there's some water in the middle of "flyover country" you should be concerned about as well

 

[CycloneWanderer]

addendum : while i agree with your statement for the most part, i am one hundred percent for the wind farms. they built one outside my town, and it has been a great thing for the city.

The only real negatives i have about wind farming is that a) they kill lots of birds, and b) watching dozens of giant white propeller blades silently rotating over corn/soybean fields when I drive through the midwest creeps me the hell out for some reason.

On second thought, that second one isn't actually a "real" negative, is it?

 

[Declan]

It's almost as if there's some water in the middle of "flyover country" you should be concerned about as well

Not really. ADM is draining those aquifers so low that it will take generations for the surface oil to get into the water supply and then into the food supply.

 

[Helix]

The only real negatives i have about wind farming is that a) they kill lots of birds, and b) watching dozens of giant white propeller blades silently rotating over corn/soybean fields when I drive through the midwest creeps me the hell out for some reason.

the blades rotate so slowly now that i find it hard to believe that any birds can run into them. i mean, these blades rotate slowly.

i used to ride my motorcycle out to see them being built. you would not believe how big those things are. you really see it when they are being brought in on trucks. it was almost dizzying.

 

[MMC]

the blades rotate so slowly now that i find it hard to believe that any birds can run into them. i mean, these blades rotate slowly.

i used to ride my motorcycle out to see them being built. you would not believe how big those things are. you really see it when they are being brought in on trucks. it was almost dizzying.

Heya Helix. :2wave: I seen the ones going down I-65 headed towards Kentucky. Not all of them are on at the same time either.

 

[CycloneWanderer]

the blades rotate so slowly now that i find it hard to believe that any birds can run into them. i mean, these blades rotate slowly.

i used to ride my motorcycle out to see them being built. you would not believe how big those things are. you really see it when they are being brought in on trucks. it was almost dizzying.

I'm not anti-wind, just think it should be a consideration. I'm pretty sure birds get killed by buildings hitting them, too - those move lots slower than wind turbines. I'm not against building more buildings. It seemed like for a while I couldn't get on the interstate without seeing trucks with a blade on them going somewhere. I completely agree that the size of them is astounding.

 

[Gladiator]

Gladiator:

Why does the US Government need to get involved? Eminent Domain, Years to payback from the profits? Is this a loan? Some Indian Nations object tot he pipeline. What are their rights? Will the US be paid back? How?

If you wanted to avoid hyperpartisan diatribe, this post does not help. You realize, of course, that emminent domain was commonly used to build the rail infrastructure? I thought you wanted a decent conversation about the transportation of this stuff, not a hyperpartisan diatribe on whether it should be collected in the first place.

"A Native American tribal leader sits on his horse in front of the U.S. Capitol in Washington on Tuesday as the Cowboy and Indian Alliance protests the proposed Keystone XL pipeline from Canada to the U.S. As part of its "Reject and Protect" protest, the alliance is organizing a week-long series of actions by farmers, ranchers and tribes to show their opposition to the pipeline. "

Native Americans Hit D.C. to Protest Keystone Pipeline - NBC News


So the answer is that Eminent Domain of the US Government is needed to build some parts of the Keystone pipeline?



"Yesterday the Lancaster County District Court in Lincoln, NE found LB 1161—the law that amended Nebraska state pipeline laws to clear the way for the Keystone XL pipeline by granting the power of eminent domain to Gov. Heineman and in turn TransCananda—unconstitutional and void, according to Bold Nebraska.

“Citizens won today,” said Jane Kleeb, director of Bold Nebraska. “We beat a corrupt bill that Gov. Heineman and the Nebraska Legislature passed in order to pave the way for a foreign corporation to run roughshod over American landowners.”

http://ecowatch.com/2014/02/20/judge-strikes-down-eminent-domain-keystone-xl-law/





//

 

[CanadaJohn]

The objection to increased oil is not the transport mechanism but the environmental issue. Arguing that rail is better than a pipeline for oil transport does not alter that objection.

Whether the Keystone Pipeline is built in its entirety, not just the southern part that is now being built, or not is irrelevant to whether or not Canada will continue to develop and exploit their natural resource in the oilsands of western Canada. We're developing them, like it or not. The only environmental issue, as has been stated by all in the US government who have evaluated the project and have unanimously approved it, is that the pipeline will have no negative environmental effect and, in fact, will have a positive environmental effect because the shipping of oil by pipeline is far less carbon contributing than shipping it via rail which is being done now.

 

[CycloneWanderer]

Gladiator:

Why does the US Government need to get involved? Eminent Domain, Years to payback from the profits? Is this a loan? Some Indian Nations object tot he pipeline. What are their rights? Will the US be paid back? How?





"A Native American tribal leader sits on his horse in front of the U.S. Capitol in Washington on Tuesday as the Cowboy and Indian Alliance protests the proposed Keystone XL pipeline from Canada to the U.S. As part of its "Reject and Protect" protest, the alliance is organizing a week-long series of actions by farmers, ranchers and tribes to show their opposition to the pipeline. "

Native Americans Hit D.C. to Protest Keystone Pipeline - NBC News


So the answer is that Eminent Domain of the US Government is needed to build some parts of the Keystone pipeline?



"Yesterday the Lancaster County District Court in Lincoln, NE found LB 1161—the law that amended Nebraska state pipeline laws to clear the way for the Keystone XL pipeline by granting the power of eminent domain to Gov. Heineman and in turn TransCananda—unconstitutional and void, according to Bold Nebraska.

“Citizens won today,” said Jane Kleeb, director of Bold Nebraska. “We beat a corrupt bill that Gov. Heineman and the Nebraska Legislature passed in order to pave the way for a foreign corporation to run roughshod over American landowners.”

Judge Sides With Landowners, Strikes Down Eminent Domain Law Allowing Keystone XL » EcoWatch

For a guy posting about wanting to know about alternatives to the pipeline, you spend an awful lot of effort talking about the pipeline.