Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

xchrom

(108,903 posts)
Wed Feb 8, 2012, 12:28 PM Feb 2012

Nebraska Ranchers Question Pipeline Route

http://www.dailyyonder.com/nebraska-ranchers-question-pipeline-route/2012/02/06/3746

The Keystone XL oil pipeline may have stalled for now, but a group of Nebraskans is worried that the project—which will likely be resurrected in some form—would still pass through regions of the state that are vulnerable to oil spills.

Seven landowners met with Nebraska Gov. Dave Heineman on Thursday to discuss their concerns. They brought along a slideshow of maps and photos and signed their presentation "by Stewards of the Land."

The pipeline was originally slated to pass through the Sandhills, a fragile ecosystem that overlies the Ogallala aquifer in north-central Nebraska. But last November, TransCanada, the Alberta-based company that is trying to build the project, bowed to pressure and agreed to reroute the pipeline away from the Sandhills.

The company had begun searching for a new route when the Obama administration rejected the pipeline permit on Jan. 18.
6 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Nebraska Ranchers Question Pipeline Route (Original Post) xchrom Feb 2012 OP
The Sandhills are one of the most beautiful and peaceful places on earth, IMO. TwilightGardener Feb 2012 #1
Really, Nebraska? gratuitous Feb 2012 #2
One simple question: Why does this oil have to be piped all the way from Canada to Houston... DCKit Feb 2012 #3
Excellent question. Doesn't ProgressiveEconomist Feb 2012 #4
a LOT of Canadians are asking the exact same question. Joe Shlabotnik Feb 2012 #5
maybe they can re-route through some Indian reservations Enrique Feb 2012 #6

TwilightGardener

(46,416 posts)
1. The Sandhills are one of the most beautiful and peaceful places on earth, IMO.
Wed Feb 8, 2012, 12:42 PM
Feb 2012

Its saving grace was being a poor region for farming, even with fairly abundant water (relative to the rest of the plains). Would be unthinkable to see it get wrecked and poisoned by a foreign company chasing profits. Let them tear up and poison their own land.

gratuitous

(82,849 posts)
2. Really, Nebraska?
Wed Feb 8, 2012, 12:45 PM
Feb 2012

Isn't this what your state has wanted for years, with its steadfast backing of the Republican party? You had to suspect that your turn would come, sooner or later. You know what happens next? You should, you've seen it play out dozens of times over the years. You'll be called socialists or commies. You'll be accused of wanting to weaken America. You'll be against all those zillions of jobs the XL pipeline is going to create. You may even find out that it's not quite so much fun being on the receiving end of the demagoguery.

So . . . what are you going to do about it? You've gotten into this fix by electing and re-electing the most hidebound lizard brains that can be found.

 

DCKit

(18,541 posts)
3. One simple question: Why does this oil have to be piped all the way from Canada to Houston...
Wed Feb 8, 2012, 12:47 PM
Feb 2012

to be refined?

ProgressiveEconomist

(5,818 posts)
4. Excellent question. Doesn't
Wed Feb 8, 2012, 01:30 PM
Feb 2012

North America need another Houston somewhere on the Pacific coast, to ship petroleum products to newer potential markets in Asia?

What are the monetary cost and environmental risks of building a pipeline to Texas compared to the costs and risks of building a new refining and shipping hub in, say, Washington State, Oregon, or California?

If nobody has answers to these questions, much more study definitely is needed before okaying a risky pipeline.

Joe Shlabotnik

(5,604 posts)
5. a LOT of Canadians are asking the exact same question.
Wed Feb 8, 2012, 06:39 PM
Feb 2012

A large segment believes that the tar sands are toxic and should be left as is. But another large segment is asking 1) why not refine it here and create needed longterm Canadian jobs, and 2) why ship out out the raw ingredient, just to re-import the finished product for the eastern half of the country. But as usual, multinational oil companies have no loyalty to any country, couldn't give a rats ass about jobs, environment, sustainability etc, and the Conservative government is deaf to it's constituents, and 100% in the pocket of the oil industry. Its a loose/loose for everyone except a privileged few.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Nebraska Ranchers Questio...