Plan for Canada-to-Texas oil pipeline moves forward after environmental review

[Cali_Democrat]

Source: Washington Post

The State Department issued its final environmental impact statement Friday for a controversial oil pipeline stretching from Canada to Texas, affirming earlier findings that its construction and operation will have “limited adverse environmental impacts.”

The assessment moves the $7 billion Keystone XL pipeline closer to fruition. The department will have to conduct a 90-day review of whether the project is in the “national interest” before issuing a final decision by the end of the year.

The 2 1/2-year-long review looked at several options, including scrapping the project altogether and moving it to a different location. In the executive summary of the final environment analysis, officials wrote, “The agency-preferred alternative is the proposed Project with various and minor route realignments.”

The assessment noted that the 1,700-mile oil pipeline from Alberta, Canada, to the Gulf Coast would help meet America’s long-term need for crude oil.

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/plan-for-canada-to-texas-oil-pipeline-moves-forward-after-environmental-review/2011/08/26/gIQA3iaJgJ_story.html

---

Well I can't say that I'm surprised. I don't think the Obama Administration ever had any intention of putting a stop this pipeline and seriously reviewing any environmental impact.

[no_hypocrisy]

1. That's a whole lotta eminent domain for easements . . . . .

[kysrsoze]

2. Here's my dumb question: Couldn't they just build a refinery closer to the US/CA border?

Like North Dakota? They have to transport it anyway after it's refined. Why does that have to happen in the Gulf Coast?

Not that I'm a supporter of the idea to begin with. I think it's stupid, considering the carbon which will be released when this oil is burned in cars, trucks and whatnot?

[kentauros]

4. Because first you have to permit the location for the plant.

Then you have to get the environmental permits to build it, permits for the regulation of the plant once it's in operation, design and engineering of the plant, shipping of the materials to build the plant far inland away from the ports set up for this kind of thing, not to mention the time it takes to build a refinery. Once the design of a pipeline and the acquisition of easements is done, actual construction is measured in months, not years.

Also, as with any proposed project of this magnitude, design is often begun even before approval is given. The client (whomever is the company wanting the pipeline) anticipates "getting their way" (and they often do) so they can afford the two years of engineering and design needed to get something like this pipeline off the ground and into construction. Plus, projects as large as this one is done in segments. They may already have large portions of the pipeline completed, and if approval is denied, they still have pipe in this country that can be used and tied into other existing pipelines. The pipeline owner doesn't lose no matter what.

[XemaSab]

8. I would think that Montana or North Dakota

would welcome the jobs. There's a lot of wide open space out there, and a refinery really doesn't have such a massive footprint.

I'm sure there would be a few state hoops to jump through, but dealing with one state for a linear project plus a few square miles of land sounds way easier than dealing with 6 states for a linear project.

[kentauros]

9. No, a refinery doesn't have a big footprint.

But there are regulations and permits on the local, state and federal level to abide by, such as with the EPA, FERC and whatever other regulatory agencies handle pipelines and the interstate transmission of oil.

My main guess for why it's coming down here to the Gulf Coast is because they are anticipating (or have already arranged for the) selling it, i.e., exporting it. The Houston Ship Channel is the primary port for that, not to mention the fact that it's got a huge concentration of existing refineries, ready to take on this task. Refining the crude at the source would be inefficient because it would then have to be either trucked or piped with another (and wholly different type) of pipeline to the coast anyway.

It's all likely a question of overall costs and existing refinery-capability than what might appear to make sense to the rest of us ;)

[XemaSab]

12. I was thinking it would save regulatory work with

US Fish and Wildlife Service and the Army Corps, among others.

Surveying every little ditch across a slice of the country and trying to establish connectivity or find rare frogs sounds like a bear of a project.

[kentauros]

14. I guess because of the massive amount of potential oil

in the tarsands is enough to warrant doing it the way they have. I would have thought they'd just have piped it to Hudson Bay and shipped from there once it was refined. So much easier for them.

TransCanada, though, is an international company, so I guess they've done enough of this kind of project that it's not as bad or difficult as it seems to us.

[tammywammy]

30. Plus there's a lot of NIMBY with a refinery as well. n/t

[Fuddnik]

15. They want it to go to the PORTS in Texas.

So that it can be shipped overseas. This domestic consumption crap is what it always is. Bullshit.

I know the West coast would make for easier shipping to China and Japan. But guess what? That's phase two, and it's already in the planning stage.

[CanonRay]

3. Money talks

My old man told me that 50 years ago...truer than ever today.

[blkmusclmachine]

5. The WH's Environmental Record is a FARCE:

We knew this with the Gulf of Mexico and the WH's deferring everything to BP. Foxes guarding the hen house. It's all the WH does. It's a syndicate.

[Altoid_Cyclist]

6. That's about the gist of it I think.

I think that they would been involved in a matter of seconds if the decision had impacted the corporations in a negative way.

Clean energy...my hairy butt!

Well, at least this will create jobs for years to come. Of course the jobs will be in the environmental remediation field after a series of "unexpected and impossible to predict" mishaps take place with the responsible parties unscathed ala the Deepwater Horizon fiasco. We all remember that one don't we? What's that, you say that it's still leaking and a lot of aggrieved parties have had their lives destroyed with little or no meaningful compensation? But they put their best man on it! Too bad that Feinberg was also the best man for the corporations and the government which failed to do anything to help end the disaster.

So many assualts on the environment taking place that it almost makes you wonder if the shrub and Darth are still in control.

[saras]

19. "environmental remediation" without proper safety gear is a great way to get rid of young liberals..

...without the bad publicity created by, say, Breivik's solution.

9-11 responders.

Gulf spill responders.

[Altoid_Cyclist]

25. First responders and clean-up volunteers do make great photo-op props.

They get to have their pictures taken with famous people. Of course, once they become ill (or worse), the famous people don't seem to have much use for them anymore.

As you pointed out, since they often take years to exhibit the consequences of their altruistic actions, it just doesn't carry the same elan that a nut with a gun has.

Once again, a song by Bruce Cockburn comes to mind.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmbbaNFONMY

Stolen Land: Bruce Cockburn

Lyrics:

From Tierra del Fuego to Ungava Bay
The history of betrayal continues to today
The spirit of Almighty Voice, the ghost of Anna Mae
Call like thunder from the mountains -- you can hear them say
It's a stolen land

Apartheid in Arizona, slaughter in Brazil
If bullets don't get good PR there's other ways to kill
Kidnap all the children, put 'em in a foreign system
Bring them up in no-man's land where no one really wants them
It's a stolen land


Stolen land -- but it's all we've got
Stolen land -- and there's no going back
Stolen land -- and we'll never forget
Stolen land -- and we're not through yet


In my mind I catch a picture -- big black raven in the sky
Looking at the ocean -- sail reflected in black eye --
Sail as white as heroin, white like weathered bones --
Rum and guns and smallpox gonna change the face of home
In this stolen land...

If you're like me you'd like to think we've learned from our mistakes
Enough to know we can't play god with others' lives at stake
So now we've all discovered the world wasn't only made for whites
What step are you gonna take to try and set things right
In this stolen land


Stolen land -- but it's all we've got
Stolen land -- and there's no going back
Stolen land -- and we'll never forget
Stolen land -- and we're not through yet

[AsahinaKimi]

7. One can do the math...

One huge pipe line
plus
an good sized earthquake
equals another massive disaster.

[kentauros]

11. That can happen right now,

thanks to the thousands of pipelines crisscrossing the continent, and carrying more than just crude oil ;)

[customerserviceguy]

20. Thanks for making sense on this thread

I'd much rather we get our energy from Canada than from countries that would simply use the money to stab us in the back.

[alarimer]

28. It will NOT be going to "us"; it will be sold on the world market.

It is complete fucking lie that it is energy destined for the US market. If you believe otherwise, you are hopelessly naive. The Adminstration is LYING about that.

[grntuscarora]

10. I'm confused...

The article says TransCanada has "proposed measures to compensate for any toll its activities could have on the imperiled beetle." What the hell does that mean? They're going to cut checks to the beetles' relatives??

I don't understand why the State Department "diplomats" are in charge of evaluating a project that should be in the hands of scientists, environmentalists, native americans, and engineers.

But clearly, there's a lot about D.C. that I just don't get.

[kentauros]

13. The State Department is involved

because the pipeline crosses country boundaries, i.e., Canada's border with the U.S. So, there is still an environmental test it has to go through just for that. On either side of that border each country's environmental regulatory agencies have even more hoops through which TransCanada must abide or the project won't happen.

I will restate this much, though: it is very likely that portions of this pipeline are either already completed or in the process of being completed. Better to have part of a pipeline that can be used for other petroleum products than a project that has to be scrapped in whole. This is a massive project, and it's probably costing them in the hundreds of millions, if not more :o

[grntuscarora]

18. So I take it the State Dept. assessment

is simply the first of several impact studies, and there will be opportunities for additional citizen input in both the U.S. and Canada before all is approved.

Kentauros, when you say that TransCanada has probably already started/completed portions of the pipeline, do you mean on our side of the border,or just portions located in Canada?

[kentauros]

21. Having read the story either in this OP

or another one (can't remember now) there will indeed be other studies to be done, as well as public comments in several states up until the deadline (I'm paraphrasing here.) FERC is the "Federal Energy Regulatory Commission" and they cover all pipeline projects in the U.S. for compliance to environmental and other legalities. I only know a little about everything they cover, but I do know there are also hydrological studies to be performed and regulations to be met. As you may have ascertained, I work in the industry, as a pipeline mapping designer (high-level drafting :))

I have never worked on a project like TransCanada's, but have on smaller natural gas pipelines, covering "only" a few hundred miles. In those cases, they designed and built the pipeline in phases, or stages. Each piece could be ultimately tied into some other existing pipeline were any of the other phases denied by FERC. The pipeline companies make sure they cover all bases with any project because they cost so much just to design, even before implementation of construction. Even those "smaller" pipelines, an office of 20-30 people in all related disciplines, took two years just to do the engineering and regulatory compliance!

Construction of a pipeline is actually pretty simple, compared to other things in this industry. Basically, it's just a precisely-trenched ditch, dug about eight feet deep, welded "joints" of pipe either 40 or 80 feet long lowered into the trench and then covered over. Easements are relatively small, with the permanent easement being only fifty feet wide. Road easements for just a two-lane road are often more than that. Temporary workspaces are bought or leased for the duration of construction at that point, and the land-owner gets paid for it.

The hard part to construction is when it crosses wetlands, water bodies (rivers, lakes, ponds), archaeological sites, and residential areas. Some fo those then require the pipe to be "drilled" under that area with what's called a "horizontal directional drill." You have probably seen the tiny versions where a cable or telecom is installing new cable. Same principle, just on a huge scale for pipelines.

Now they do have to build pump stations and there are mainline valves every few miles. Those are what get shut off if there's a breach or leak. A breach usually only happens when someone starts digging in the easement with a backhoe and doesn't call one of the companies that keep track of all pipelines in the country (Dig Tess is one such company.) A leak can be caused by plenty of things, though most often it's from age and corrosion. Bad welds also cause leaks.

Okay, I really went off on a tangent there, but now you know a little more than is often given in the media and I hope I answered your question :)

[grntuscarora]

22. I'm a bit more

knowledgeable and less confused than I was a few minutes ago. Your factual post and expert info is appreciated:) Thanks!

[kentauros]

24. You're welcome!

Glad I saw this thread and was able to clarify some things :)

[Fuddnik]

16. Why is this not unexpected.

They're just figuring out a way to spin it.

[sulphurdunn]

17. The Canadians

also plan a Tar Sands pipeline to British Colombia, where 1,200 foot tankers will navigate narrow inland waterways through pristine forests on their way to the open ocean to sell oil to Asia until the next and inevitable Exxon Valdez/BP environmental catastrophe slows them down for a few months. That may not happen before WWIII breaks out ironically over imperial competition to drill in the Arctic after the ice melts because of global warming caused by burning coal and oil. The people who presently run global civilization are criminally insane, all of them. Nothing will change until that is realized and acted upon, if there is time.

[JJW]

23. Safer the Candian perscription drugs

Apparently the pipeline is safer than pharmaceuticals, that Congress won't allow across the border.

[dmosh42]

26. The cooperation is amazing when it's for the Repuke states!

[alarimer]

27. This oil is not coming to the US; it is going on the open market.,

It is a fallacy for the Administration to claim that this will make us less dependent on foreign oil. Actually that is an outright lie. It is going on the world market.

The Obama administration needs to stop lying to us.

[sarcasmo]

29. Who is going to get the contract to build this 7 billion dollar pipeline?