Obama officials back oil pipeline from Canada

[harvey007]

Source: Boston Globe

WASHINGTON - President Obama’s administration gave a crucial green light yesterday to a proposed 1,711-mile pipeline that would carry heavy oil from Canada across the Great Plains to terminals in Oklahoma and the Gulf Coast, saying the project would provide a secure source of energy without significant damage to the environment.

For many in the environmental movement, the administration’s apparent acceptance of the pipeline was yet another disappointment, after recent decisions to tentatively approve drilling in the Arctic Ocean, to open 20 million more acres of the Gulf of Mexico for oil leasing and to delay several major air quality regulations. The movement is still smarting from the administration’s failure to push climate change legislation through Congress.

Read more: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2011/08/27/obama_officials_back_oil_pipeline_from_canada/

---

And in the London Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/aug/26/obama-approves-pipeline-alberta-texas

[villager]

1. A very very environmentally shitty administration. As per their corporate owners' wishes

n/t

[Peregrine Took]

46. Like George Costanza - B.O. is the EXACT OPPOSITE of everything he

portrayed himself to be.

[Lorien]

2. Of course they do

sellout planet killing a-holes. :grr:

[SammyWinstonJack]

3. Heckuvajob there, Obama.

Don't care much for Planet Earth do ya?


What a shame.

[ClosureHasCome]

39. What are we supposed to do to relieve our depencence on foreign oil?

Nothing?

[alarimer]

63. This will not do it; the oil will be sold on the world market.

The administration is LYING about that.

[Mr Deltoid]

81. Yep, it is auctioned off to the highest bidder

Where is Canada in this? Why can't they stop it on their end?

[Mr Deltoid]

80. Start going solar

That is the only way. In Germany 1/3 of homes have solar panels.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Webster Green]

5. Of course they do.

They put the fucking U.S. Coast Guard and the EPA under the control of BP during the "spill" disaster in the gulf.

Big oil calls the shots. Obama is a tool. :mad:

[bhikkhu]

6. Dupe, and the title is a lie

...if you actually read the article (along with the source article from the Guardian) it says the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, approves the pipeline deal, while Obama has not weighed in on it.

on edit - not that it won't get built anyway. I don't think a president has a choice when building pipelines and so forth, given the immediate reaction at the polls to the price of gas, to any downward shift in GDP, and to jobs, which this will inevitably create.

In any case, it will be one to add to the collection of past presidents:

[Fearless]

10. The title says "Obama officials". Is HRC not an Obama official?

[bhikkhu]

14. Fair enough - its not exactly a lie

no point bickering over details, though it does a very poor job of explaining the approval process, and the lack of actual approval from the president.

Again, not saying that he is likely to say no, given the jobs, gas prices, and economic growth aspect of it.

[Jakes Progress]

27. No. It isn't a lie.

If cheney had ordered torture (oh wait, he did) wouldn't all of DU be lambasting bush for approving torture (oh wait, we did(.

Thank you though for back-handedly admitting what has happened. We could have done without the energy industry talking points though.

[bhikkhu]

32. Ignoring the energy industry side leads to most people demanding cheap gas, a rising GDP

and so on. They tend to vote out politicians who do or say anything less than responsive to the demand. Politicians fall into compliance, the industry delivers, and people happily consume away. If the party shows a sign of slowing down, they demand more...

I see no point - having watched the whole mess proceed for 40 years now - in having any conversation about the environmental costs of resource extraction without looking at the behaviors that make that extraction so irresistibly profitable. People demand a product, but want it to just appear somehow, without consequences.

The cost of not developing the oil sands is more costly gas. I'm fine with that. I think we should raise the gas tax in any case, and use the money to build an alternative transportation infrastructure.

The second cost is economic growth; raw resources are fundamental drivers of economic growth. I'd be fine with zero growth - though almost universally you hear doom and disaster if GDP growth falls below 3%.

The consequence of lower economic growth is lower job creation. I'd also be fine with zero job creation. I think the 139 million jobs we have is a good number, and historically a very high percentage of any population to have trooping off to jobs every day. If the jobs were adequately paid the number would be adequate - there are plenty of roles in society that need filling that don't involve working for a wage, and if those who did work were paid fairly and incomes were more evenly proportioned, we could all get along fine with what we have.

...but I don't know anyone who agrees with me, and the vast majority demand by their behaviors that the pipeline be built, even if they say with their mouths they don't want it.

[Jakes Progress]

56. 'Pends on income source.

If you make money from it, it probably sounds good to you. If you don't, it doesn't.

Just because crap will be done, doesn't mean you have to just throw up your arms and wallow in it.

[lunasun]

37. ""not saying that he is likely to say no""......

exactly - but I voted for Obama and not for Clinton
thinking he was the president who would say no and not approve something like this
.... but unlikely I agree esp with his history since my vote....

[creeksneakers2]

49. The Republicans have been hammering away

about potential jobs in the energy sector being held up by Obama.

[bhikkhu]

52. Yes, and anything that suggests envinmental concern is the same to them

...they really have no other plan and no better ideas than they had back in the reagan days, and bush as well, to create economic growth - to drill, mine, strip, exploit, develop or sell off any and all of the country's natural resources that they can get at.

When a repug talks about economic growth, that's what he has in mind.

[No Elephants]

65. Title is not a lie. It says "Obama official." Hillary is an official of the Obama administration.

Besides, it would be pretty naive to assume she is voicing her approval all mavericky like.

[Mr Deltoid]

7. Game over for global warming

Only the monkey wrench gang can save humanity from the RW now.

[Kolesar]

18. +1 eom

[JJW]

8. What is everyone waiting for?

A superhero, that doesn't exist? There is no government. It's a sham everything is for the top 1% and CEO outlaws. The justices are fascists who stole the election in 2000. Right now it is just a free-for-all outlaws and the cruelest individual bribing, stealing, and killing for profit. And why not, when whether you get health care or decent food and shelter is all about having money and those jobs are being exported by Obama's job creation Czar, Immelt of GE that pays no taxes.

[cilla4progress]

59. Sadly I agree with your incredibly

nihilist, dystopian post. I work in the legal field and have for 25 years. I see how it works.

[robcon]

9. I think the pipeline is a great idea, and I hope it's completed soon.

I'm with the president. There's no reason to delay this project.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

15. Really? Not a single reason?

The fact that this company has a history of pipeline explosions? The fact that its going over the largest underwater fresh water supplies in the world that's a vital resource to those who depend on it? The fact that America doesn't even get the gasoline that's made from this oil, its still sold on the global market.


Jesus, it really means nothing to be a progressive anymore. You would sell out an entire community of people who depend on something just for cheaper gas and just because a "Democratic" President is for it. I'm speechless.

[glinda]

20. Carbon releases 3X more than from regular gas/oil.

[lunasun]

43. Perhaps let Pogo speak for you........

"There is no need to sally forth, for it remains true that those things which make us human are, curiously enough, always close at hand. Resolve then, that on this very ground, with small flags waving and tinny blast on tiny trumpets, we shall meet the enemy, and not only may he be ours, he may be us."

AND that is not to call people with different opinions the enemy, just that what you think you have in common with people that 'think alike ' may not exist

[Mr Deltoid]

21. "There's no reason to delay this project"

Except that it threatens life on earth. Besides that, it is a wonderful idea.

[shanti]

24. may i ask why?

i see no reason for it. there are alternatives.

[Jakes Progress]

29. "I'm with the president". That says a lot.

Is that just for this travesty? Or does it apply to anything that happens? Anything?

[Zhade]

33. Spoken like the self-admitted conservative you are. At least you're consistent.

NT!

[dflprincess]

41. There's one big reason, the Ogallala Aquifer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogallala_Aquifer

The Ogallala Aquifer, also known as the High Plains Aquifer, is a vast yet shallow underground water table aquifer located beneath the Great Plains in the United States. One of the world's largest aquifers, it covers an area of approximately 174,000 mi² (450,000 km²) in portions of the eight states of South Dakota, Nebraska, Wyoming, Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Texas. It was named in 1898 by N.H. Darton from its type locality near the town of Ogallala, Nebraska.<1>

About 27 percent of the irrigated land in the United States overlies this aquifer system, which yields about 30 percent of the nation's ground water used for irrigation. In addition, the aquifer system provides drinking water to 82 percent of the people who live within the aquifer boundary.

[cottonseed]

76. Right. Because there isn't already a pipeline anywhere on the 8 states on this map.

I know you know that and it's not beneficial to you activism to acknowledge that, but it is a fact that that entire area is crawling with pipelines for both oil and natural gas.

[dflprincess]

84. One of the biggest area of concern seems to be the Nebraska Sand Hills

http://my.firedoglake.com/dbillesbach/2011/08/22/a-few-facts-about-the-nebraska-sandhills/

A few facts about the Nebraska SandHills….
By: OMB Monday August 22, 2011 8:32 pm

The SandHills are also the largest “grass stabilized” dune field in the world, and without the grasses, they would be the largest sand dune field in the Western Hemisphere. The soils are very very sandy and porous, allowing quick and efficient infiltration of any fluids that happen to impinge upon them. My colleague and I have just made the first measurements of the recharge rate (although only at a single point) in the region, and I have a pretty good idea of how easily things can work their way down to the water table (i.e. the aquifer).

Probably the thing about the XL pipeline that scares me the most is he potential for one or more “small” leaks. A small leak in the buried pipeline (several barrels per day) would probably go unnoticed for a long time. The monitoring equipment at the pumping stations are designed to read and control flows of thousands and thousands of barrels per day, and a leak of just a few or maybe even ten just wouldn’t register. In that case, oil/tar would leak, and leak, and leak, mostly unnoticed. It probably wouldn’t be discovered until the plume worked its way 12 or so feet up to the surface, and then only if someone happens upon the site. Most places in the SandHills see very little human traffic. This scenario could dump hundreds or thousands of barrels of oil before it’s ever noticed.

Once in the soil, the sands will act somewhat like a refinery. The lighter fractions (benzene, toluene, heptane, etc) will very quickly infiltrate downward to the water table, then it’s not just a soil clean up. It’ll require the pumping and treatment of millions of gallons of water.

How far down does the oil have to go to get to the water? Well, that depends. The SandHills consist of three major ecosystems. By far, the most common are “dunal uplands”. These are the large, sculpted dunal ridges that can rise up to 300 feet above the inter-dunal valley floors. If the pipeline is buried 12 or so feed below the surface, there could be 100 or more feet to the actual water table. The other common ecosystems are “dry valley floors” where the water table is between 3 and 30 feet below the surface, and “subirrigated meadows” where the water table intersects the land surface at least for part of the year. In either of these ecosystems, the leak would be directly (or almost directly) into the aquifer.

Also here's a link to a story where people living near the Sand Hills express their concerns.

http://journalstar.com/news/state-and-regional/nebraska/article_44759c04-49a8-11df-8291-001cc4c03286.html

I've heard discussions both on NPR and Thom Hartmann's show and people far more knowledgeable than I are raising questions about this particular pipeline running over the aquifer. It would seem wise to err on the side of caution in this case and not build the thing.

[cstanleytech]

44. I'm not so sure if its a good idea really because dont they have to go over alot

of rivers? Thats a pretty big risk, true its not as big compared to a nuclear reactor imo but still I am not sure if we should be doing it.

[kentauros]

62. Pipelines don't go over rivers any more; they go under them.

They also go under existing residential neighborhoods, industrial parks, office parks, major utility r.o.w.'s, lakes and some ponds (depending on their size.) This is done with what's called a "horizontal directional drill" or HDD for short.

You have probably seen an HDD in action and didn't know what it was, other than that machine used to put in new communications cable. Those used for pipelines are much larger, but the method is the same.

The upper drilling-distance limit is around 7000 feet, or a little over a mile and a quarter.




(I linked the image to a page that describes the process in greater detail than I just did.)

[cstanleytech]

74. Oh, no I have seen those before in fact they are using the in my area to run

a whole new fiber network (with which of course they then proceeded to accidently cut the main phoneline with for this part of town) but I did not know they were also used for laying large pipes as well.

[kentauros]

77. Cutting another phone line sounds typical of some of these contractors!

I remember one mapping project I was on was for a fiber network Microsoft was installing (Level 3 was the name of it, I think.) My supervisor told us that early in the project, before I was on it, the installation contractor was using one of those smaller HDDs, drilling along side a roadway in a city (I think this took place in Seattle.)

Well, the machine operator managed to drill partway through the storm sewer for a good portion of the route. The city was not pleased in the least and the contractor had to pay for the tearing out and replacement of that storm sewer.

So, while the drilling part is fairly accurate for the route, they can still cut through pretty much anything, even other phone lines ;)

[russspeakeasy]

54. There is a sarcasm tag available....I'm hoping you just forgot it.

:evilgrin:

[No Elephants]

66. Very persuaive post.

[placton]

11. ok - who here has the feeling they may STILL

vote for this man for president? Worse than any other of his predecessors

[No Elephants]

67. Before the Presidential election is a primary. He's not the nomineee yet.

[humblebum]

12. The pipeline will be running right over the top of the Ogallala aquifer

which is a source irrigation and drinking water for many. Any bad spill could leach into the aquifer and render it worthless. Perhaps we should think about building more refineries at or near points of origin to reduce the effects of any major spill. Oh! But wait! Th oil is meant to be transported past the continental consumers to transported elsewhere. Keeps the price and profit up there.

We need more refineries and fewer pipelines.

[truthisfreedom]

13. I don't get it, people. How many of you simply don't drive cars?

I bet every single member of this forum drives a car. Unless you're willing to give up your ICE car and go electric (I have an all-electric car but it's useless in the winter in Minnesota since it's only belly-button height at 44") I wouldn't knock any domestic oil improvements. It will provide jobs and take oil company profits and turn them into commerce. It will reduce our need for overseas oil. Oil is used for plastics manufacturing and there will be NO electric cars without plastics. What's the beef about? All this noise about green... I don't see all of you flocking to electric cars and installing solar panels (I'm researching that too, and it's amazing that my net gain after 5 years will be about 20% of my investment, which will be completely returned by that point as well). Stop complaining about Obama's team doing what our country obviously needs, and start figuring out how to be part of the long-term solution!

Here's an aside: My girlfriend and I are working on developing a pilot for a reality tv show based on driving an electric car around the US, promoting electric power. I believe in them... they're a blast.

[bhikkhu]

16. I drive once a week to get groceries. The rest is bicycling.

I've commuted to work every day for over three years now - whatever weather, all year. I do most of my errands by bike too, though I do the main grocery shopping for the family in our car. Its a bit of convenience. I tried grocery shopping by bicycle for three months or so last year, and it just wasn't working out - too many trips, and hauling the weight was tough.

If I had to I'd buy a decent trailer to pull with the bike - one of these days.

[cottonseed]

75. Looks like you need this pipeline then.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

17. No you don't get it. Thanks for being honest.

Where its being built, if there was a leak or explosion (which this company has had before) it would be catastrophic. They refuse to go around the aquifer because it would cost too much money. I guess if the consequences don't have any impact on your life you don't care. But hey gas might go down 2 cents a gallon (it wont).


BTW this oil isn't going to just us. Its being sold on the global market, to everyone.

[bhikkhu]

19. The aquifer is covered by pipelines and oil infrastructure

I'm not for the pipeline, but that argument is just silly.

[No Elephants]

68. You lose the bet.

[harun]

82. We are obviously all Amish.

[burrowowl]

22. I hope he nixes it

[paparush]

23. Another scene from George Bush's 3rd Term.

The rest of the fucking world is busy at least trying to reduce their dependence on oil.

[Dr_Scholl]

25. I'd rather get oil from Canada than Saudi Arabia.

n/t

[alarimer]

64. We will not get ANY from this!!!

I am tired of repeating myself to the ignorant.

This oil will be sold on the world market. It is not "ours" and will not make a bit of difference in our dependence on foreign oil.

[INdemo]

26. Primary Obama we have a chance..No Primary Challenger we

lose and we lose our Democracy..The greatest thing that Obama could do for our country would be for him to announce he will not be a candidate for the Democratic nomination in 2012..We could then reclaim our Democratic Party and have a real chance at putting a real Democrat in the White House.

[FarCenter]

28. The pipeline needs to be built

Currently there is oversupply at the terminal in Cushing, OK, which results in the WTI price being a lot lower than the world price, which is Brent. East coast, west coast, and gulf coast refineries pay prices similar to Brent for their oil. This pipeline will deliver Canadian oil to the Gulf Coast refineries where it can be refined and supplied to the south and east of the US.

The alternative is that the Canadians will go ahead with plans to run more pipelines to the ports in British Columbia and sell the crude on the world market from there.

Global production is about 85 million barrels per day, and it is not increasing because new fields are not being found to replace old fields. So there is no possibility that this makes the greenhouse gas emissions higher than they currently are.

Going to electric vehicle instead of ICE is not a solution, since most of US electrical generation is done using coal, natural gas, and nuclear, with a small amount of hydro. Wind and solar are starting but are a very small percentage at the moment.

[Jakes Progress]

30. Golly. Test right from the Oil Industry handout.

[Uben]

31. No, I think the alternative is.....

....a never ending war in the middle east! Damn, we have oil right next door and some would rather have us spend billions in the middle east to protect our oil interests? Major fail!

[No Elephants]

69. You are assuming this will end our Middle East shenanigans? Ain't necessarily so.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

34. Greenhouse gases will go up with this pipeline because

The Canadians have to destroy an entire forest of trees to build it. This will release more carbon dioxide than any pipeline could do.

Did you know that?

I didn't either.

Now I do, and I'm horrified.

[FarCenter]

38. Where will the Canadians have to destroy a forest of trees?

Alberta, Saskatchewan? I don't see forests along the route in those provinces. If the Canadians build the proposed pipelines to BC, so forests may be affected in a marginal way.

[dflprincess]

42. Per the New York Times::

"Tar Sands Pipeline: 740K Acres Boreal Forest to Be Destroyed & Massive Rise in Greenhouse Emission"

there are details here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1790440

[FarCenter]

53. 740,000 acres is a square 34 miles on a side -- hardly an entire forest

The Canadian boreal forest is huge and extends from the Yukon to Laborador.

[NickB79]

61. Once the global-warming-sparked bark beetle infestations get through with it

There won't be much boreal forest left to speak of by the end of the century:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/18/science/18trees.html

And it will be because of carbon emissions from burning things such as this oil.

[No Elephants]

70. Hardly negligible, either.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

47. Here's another link for your edification, thanks to Hissyspit:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=439&topic_id=1822799

[FarCenter]

55. The forest will be destroyed whether the pipeline gets built or not

The area of forest destroyed, which is not very great, is due to the mining of the tar sands. It has nothing to do with the pipeline. If the Canadians will mine, process, and sell the tar sands bitumen. It is just a matter of at what difficulty and to whom.

[Divine Discontent]

57. over 700k acres of forest? are they serious? good God...

I am going to HAVE to vote for Pres Obama over Perry or Bachmann, but my goodness, is THIS the best we got??? I feel like I'm going to have to be voting for the better between two choices that grade a D and an F-. JOY...

We've seriously got to win back the House to help get that damn stain of Tea out of the halls of Congress, in fact, the Democrats need to just focus on the House and Senate races in my opinion, Barack's got plenty of money to defend his residency at the WH.

:hi:


http://www.cafepress.com/barackobama12

[theophilus]

36. The pipeline should NEVER be built.

This crappy tar sand oil is a lose/lose. It requires lots of water and tears up the environment just getting it out. We should be getting away from petroleum. YES! we should use electric vehicles. They produce and require less poison. We will move to wind/solar charging. Natural gas (without fracking) is a better fuel. Only a little above 50 percent of our electricity comes from coal. It needs to stop, as well. We are poisoning our planet and the oil companies are robbing us blind. Fye on they who want this pipeline. It is foolish and fuelish.

[FarCenter]

40. There is a limit to how fast Obama can shrink the standard of living.

Declining inputs of energy to the economy result in lower GDP per capita.

The majority of the electorate objects to having their standard of living shrink by more than a couple percent per year.

[girl gone mad]

78. First of all, the tar sands aren't going TO us, they're going THROUGH us.

We're the third world shit-hole country being exploited in this deal. The big players get to move their nasty, dirty sludge across our country and through our water sources. The oil companies reap the profits, we pay the price to build and for the inevitable clean up.

As to your assertion that GDP is dependent on energy consumption, false.



Japan has a higher GDP per capita, with half our energy consumption. We can grow our economy while decreasing our energy consumption. Not only is it possible, but it's the better option and the only sustainable plan.

[NickB79]

58. Greenhouse emissions from tar sands are 3X those of conventional fields

As old, easy fields are depleted and we use more tar sands like this, it is inevitable that emissions will rise. All oil field production is not the same. With tar sands, not only do you have to factor in the carbon in the oil itself, but the massive inputs of natural gas required to cook the tar down into oil.

[unkachuck]

35. K&R....deja vu all over again....n/t

[Botany]

45. God damn you Barack

even w/out any spills this pipeline will pump millions of tons of CO 2 into the environment

President Obama, do you want jobs for Americans in the buggy whip factory or in a clean green
industry?



BTW big thanx for Ken Salazar and his wolf killing go ahead

[Peregrine Took]

48. +100

[SavWriter]

50. Boy I'm glad

We don't have a Texas Oil Man in the White House anymore.

[blkmusclmachine]

51. When does the vaunted "Change" begin?

We're 2 years and 7 months into this Farce. Same $h!t, different package.

[Odin2005]

60. Epic Obama FAIL.

[mistertrickster]

71. This pipeline cuts right through my state. Thanks for the CHANGE I CAN BELIEVE IN, Obama. nt

[No Elephants]

72. Drill, baby, drill. Sarah Palin. Drill, baby, drill? Rudy Giuliani, at the Republican National

Convention.

[devilgrrl]

73. Anything to please the oil people, wall street, banks, big business - such a SOCIALIST!

:sarcasm:

This guy is killing me. :-(

[girl gone mad]

79. EVIL.

[DeSwiss]

83. Tic-Tac-Toe

Tic

Barack Obama has the power to stop it and no one in Congress or elsewhere can prevent him from doing so. That means -- and again, it couldn’t be simpler -- that the Keystone XL decision is the biggest environmental test for him between now and the next election. If he decides to stand up to the power of big oil, it will send a jolt through his political base, reminding the presently discouraged exactly why they were so enthused in 2008.

~ http://www.tomdispatch.com/archive/175435/">from Arrested at the White House by Bill McKibben, posted on 8/24/11 ~

Tac

NASA scientist James Hansen, who galvanized the environmental movement decades ago with his congressional testimony about the dangers of climate change, said yesterday that President Obama has a rare opportunity to show he is not a "hopeless addict."

The climatologist, who will appear at the National Press Club on Monday before joining protests at the White House, where he expects to be arrested, told ClimateWire in an email interview that the Keystone XL pipeline awaiting approval from the president is like a dirty needle from a fellow oil addict, Canada.

The pipeline, if built, would run 1,700 miles from Canada to Texas and bring in a form of crude to the United States that releases more carbon dioxide emissions in the production process than traditional oil.

"If Obama chooses the dirty needle it will confirm that Obama was just greenwashing all along, like the other well-oiled coal-fired politicians, with no real intention of solving the addiction," Hansen said.

~ http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2011/08/26/26climatewire-hansen-says-obama-will-be-greenwashing-about-72041.html">from Hansen Says Obama Will Be 'Greenwashing' About Climate Change if He Approves Keystone XL Pipeline by Christa Marshall, posted early on 8/26/11 ~


Toe!

The Obama administration gave an important approval yesterday to a controversial pipeline that will pump oil from the tar sands of Alberta to the Texas coast.

In a blow to campaigners, who have spent the last week at a sit-in at the White House, the State Department said the proposed 1,700-mile pipeline would not cause significant damage to the environment.

~ http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/aug/26/obama-approves-pipeline-alberta-texas">from Obama Approves Oil Pipeline from Alberta Tar Sands to Texas Coast by Suzanne Goldenberg, posted late on 8/26/11 ~


Posted by http://ramblingtaoist.blogspot.com/2011/08/tic-tac-toe.html">The Rambling Taoist