Quote:

---

One way to think about the keystone project–the 2,000-mile (3,220 km) pipeline that would bring oil from the tar sands of Canada to the Gulf of Mexico–is to ask what would happen if it is never built. The U.S. Department of State released an extremely thorough report that tries to answer this question. It concludes, basically, that the oil derived from Canadian tar sands will be developed at about the same pace whether or not there is a pipeline to the U.S. In other words, stopping Keystone might make us feel good, but it wouldn’t really do anything about climate change.

Given the need for oil in the U.S., Canadian producers would still get Alberta’s oil to the refineries on the Gulf of Mexico. There are other pipeline possibilities, but the most likely method of transfer is by train. The report estimates that it would take daily runs of 15 trains with about 100 tank cars each to carry the amount planned by TransCanada. That would be a large increase in traffic from what now goes north to south, but it would hardly be an insurmountable problem. Rail traffic in this corridor is already exploding: the number of carloads of crude oil doubled from 2010 to 2011, then tripled from 2011 to 2012. And remember, moving oil by train produces much higher emissions of CO[subscript 2] (from diesel locomotives) than flowing it through a pipeline.

Canada could also transport the oil by train or pipeline west to British Columbia and then on to Asia, where demand is booming. Right now that seems a distant and costly prospect, but having visited Alberta recently, I can attest that Canadian businesspeople and officials are planning seriously for Asian markets–especially since they have come to regard U.S. energy policy as politicized, hostile and mercurial. Whoever uses the oil, the CO[subscript 2] will be released into the atmosphere just the same.

Also, if we don’t use oil from Alberta, we will need to get it somewhere to fuel our transportation needs–from Venezuela, Mexico, Saudi Arabia or California. Some of these oils are heavy crude, and processing, refining and burning them is believed to be even more harmful to the environment than using fuels from refracted Canadian oil sands. Switching from oil sands to, say, Venezuelan crude (the most likely alternative) would reduce greenhouse-gas emissions by a minimal amount or not at all. To the extent that this would make us use more coal for electricity generation, it would be a big step backward for the environment. For many of these reasons, the scientific journal Nature, long a leader on climate change, argued in an editorial that President Obama should approve Keystone. A decision is expected this spring.

Environmental groups are approaching this project much as the U.S. government fights the war on drugs. They are attacking supply rather than demand. In this case, environmentalists have chosen one particular source of energy–Alberta’s tar sands–and are trying to shut it down. But as long as there is demand for oil, there will be supply. A far more effective solution would be to try to moderate demand by putting in place a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade system. Ideally we would use the proceeds to fund research on alternative energy. Washington spends $73 billion on research for defense, $31 billion on health care and just $3 billion on energy. Massive increases in research would make a difference. Targeting one Canadian oil field–or one pipeline company–will not.

Some in the environmental movement seem to recognize that the facts don’t really support singling out Keystone, so they have turned to more intangible reasons to oppose it. Climate activist Bill McKibben argues that if Obama were to say no to Keystone, it would be a turning point: “He could finally say to the Chinese, ‘We’ve done something significant. Your turn.’” Of all the arguments for blocking Keystone, this is surely the most naive. Is there a shred of evidence from the past 25 years that China would respond to this kind of unilateral concession by limiting its growth? How did Beijing respond to the Kyoto accords, under which European countries curbed their carbon emissions? By building a coal-fired power plant every week since then!

Opponents of Keystone say that the specifics are less important in this case and that it is the symbolism that matters. And it does. If we block this project–whose source is no worse than many others, rebuffing our closest trading partner and ally and spurning easily accessible energy in favor of Venezuelan or Saudi crude–it would be a symbol, and a depressing one at that. It would be a symbol of how emotion has taken the place of analysis and ideology now trumps science on both sides of the environmental debate.

---

Quote:

---

One way to think about the keystone project–the 2,000-mile (3,220 km) pipeline that would bring oil from the tar sands of Canada to the Gulf of Mexico–is to ask what would happen if it is never built. The U.S. Department of State released an extremely thorough report that tries to answer this question.

---

Quote:

---

It concludes, basically, that the oil derived from Canadian tar sands will be developed at about the same pace whether or not there is a pipeline to the U.S. In other words, stopping Keystone might make us feel good, but it wouldn’t really do anything about climate change.

---

Quote:

---

Given the need for oil in the U.S., Canadian producers would still get Alberta’s oil to the refineries on the Gulf of Mexico. There are other pipeline possibilities, but the most likely method of transfer is by train. The report estimates that it would take daily runs of 15 trains with about 100 tank cars each to carry the amount planned by TransCanada. That would be a large increase in traffic from what now goes north to south, but it would hardly be an insurmountable problem. Rail traffic in this corridor is already exploding: the number of carloads of crude oil doubled from 2010 to 2011, then tripled from 2011 to 2012. And remember, moving oil by train produces much higher emissions of CO[subscript 2] (from diesel locomotives) than flowing it through a pipeline.

---

Quote:

---

Canada could also transport the oil by train or pipeline west to British Columbia and then on to Asia, where demand is booming. Right now that seems a distant and costly prospect,

---

Quote:

---

but having visited Alberta recently, I can attest that Canadian businesspeople and officials are planning seriously for Asian markets–especially since they have come to regard U.S. energy policy as politicized, hostile and mercurial. Whoever uses the oil, the CO[subscript 2] will be released into the atmosphere just the same.

---

Quote:

---

Also, if we don’t use oil from Alberta, we will need to get it somewhere to fuel our transportation needs–from Venezuela, Mexico, Saudi Arabia or California. Some of these oils are heavy crude, and processing, refining and burning them is believed to be even more harmful to the environment than using fuels from refracted Canadian oil sands.

---

Quote:

---

Switching from oil sands to, say, Venezuelan crude (the most likely alternative) would reduce greenhouse-gas emissions by a minimal amount or not at all.

---

Quote:

---

To the extent that this would make us use more coal for electricity generation, it would be a big step backward for the environment. For many of these reasons, the scientific journal Nature, long a leader on climate change, argued in an editorial that President Obama should approve Keystone. A decision is expected this spring.

Environmental groups are approaching this project much as the U.S. government fights the war on drugs. They are attacking supply rather than demand

---

Quote:

---

. In this case, environmentalists have chosen one particular source of energy–Alberta’s tar sands–and are trying to shut it down. But as long as there is demand for oil, there will be supply. A far more effective solution would be to try to moderate demand by putting in place a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade system. Ideally we would use the proceeds to fund research on alternative energy. Washington spends $73 billion on research for defense, $31 billion on health care and just $3 billion on energy. Massive increases in research would make a difference. Targeting one Canadian oil field–or one pipeline company–will not.

---

Quote:

---

Some in the environmental movement seem to recognize that the facts don’t really support singling out Keystone, so they have turned to more intangible reasons to oppose it. Climate activist Bill McKibben argues that if Obama were to say no to Keystone, it would be a turning point: “He could finally say to the Chinese, ‘We’ve done something significant. Your turn.’”

---

Quote:

---

Of all the arguments for blocking Keystone, this is surely the most naive. Is there a shred of evidence from the past 25 years that China would respond to this kind of unilateral concession by limiting its growth? How did Beijing respond to the Kyoto accords, under which European countries curbed their carbon emissions? By building a coal-fired power plant every week since then!

Opponents of Keystone say that the specifics are less important

---

Quote:

---

in this case and that it is the symbolism that matters. And it does. If we block this project–whose source is no worse than many others, rebuffing our closest trading partner and ally

---

Quote:

---

and spurning easily accessible energy in favor of Venezuelan or Saudi crude–it would be a symbol, and a depressing one at that. It would be a symbol of how emotion has taken the place of analysis and ideology now trumps science on both sides of the environmental debate.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Since I talk with oil companies that do secondary oil recovery and refining, I would be happy to get into the details, if anyone is interested.

---

Quote:

---

The 20-inch Pegasus pipeline ruptured on late Friday afternoon and a few thousand barrels of oil had been observed, Exxon said in a statement. Local media reported the spill occurred in a subdivision.

Federal, state and local officials were on site and the company was preparing a response for a spill of more than 10,000 barrels.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency had categorized the rupture as a "major spill", Exxon said, and 22 homes were evacuated following the incident. Clean-up crews had recovered approximately 4,500 barrels of oil and water.

The pipeline carries crude oil from Patoka, Illinois, to the Gulf Coast.

---

Quote:

---

The ExxonMobil Pegasus tar sands pipeline spilled around 185,000 gallons of tar sands, undisclosed toxic chemicals and contaminated water in Arkansas yesterday.

Like many tar sands pipelines, Pegasus was actually an older pipeline which had its flow reversed. This is also the case for the Seaway pipeline in Texas and possible tar sands pipelines in New England.

And this wasn't even the only spill this week! Read more about the 30,000 tar sands spill in Minnesota here:

http://www.tarsandsblockade.org/tar-sands-spill-train-derailment-minne
sota/

---

Quote:

---

Companies that transport oil are required to pay into the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, giving the government a pot of money for immediate spill responses. The Enbridge pipeline in Michigan and the Exxon pipeline in Arkansas, however, are exempt because these pipelines are not considered to be carrying “conventional oil,” despite the fact bitumen spills are more expensive and more dangerous.
In a January 2011 memorandum, the IRS determined that to generate revenues for the oil spill trust fund, Congress only intended to tax conventional crude, and not tar sands or other unconventional oils. This exemption remains to this day, even though the U.S. moves billions of gallons of tar sands crude through its pipeline system every year. The trust fund is liable for tar sands oil spill cleanups without collecting any revenue from tar sands transport. If the fund goes broke,the American taxpayer foots the cleanup bill.
When Connolly learned that Enbridge is not required to pay into the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, she was shocked. “I can’t believe that,” she said. “It’s unconscionable, disgusting. I can’t believe it’s not being brought up … [Companies] get enough tax loopholes; they can pay into the system and should not make taxpayers pay for their cleanup.”
Connolly holds that the government needs to hold companies like Enbridge and Exxon accountable. She believes her government representatives should advocate for companies to pay into the Oil Spill Liability Fund and keep discussing the issue. “They’re making a ton of money and they’re calling the shots, but who do they answer to? We’re asking the government to come and look at the impact, but no one comes out. No one looks; no one sees. They think it’s all cleaned up.”

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Oh dear, I didn't know that. This actually incentivizes pumping tar-sand oil, since it shifts the cost of managing risk onto those who pipe plain crude oil.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
NOBC: There's another reason for the pipeline being built through here: regulations. See, it would be most efficient for TransCanada to simply build a pipeline from the tar sands to their western coast, Vancouver, or nearby, to have it refined there and then shipped on to China, Japan, or wherever.

So why don't they just do that? Because the Canadians have stricter regulations than we do. It's cheaper and easier for them to pump it across the United States, because there's really no downside for them environmentally. Anything goes wrong, fuck it, that's our problem, not theirs. If it all goes to hell, it's tar sands oil, so it doesn't even qualify as "oil" in the regulations, and they're not even responsible for the costs of the cleanup!

Simply put, it's cheaper, less of a regulatory hurdle, and less of a liability for the company to pump oil into the Gulf of Mexico than it is for them to risk spilling it on their own soil. And we made it that way for them, and now the so-called "conservative" movement wants to make it even easier.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
NOBC: There's another reason for the pipeline being built through here: regulations. See, it would be most efficient for TransCanada to simply build a pipeline from the tar sands to their western coast, Vancouver, or nearby, to have it refined there and then shipped on to China, Japan, or wherever.

So why don't they just do that? Because the Canadians have stricter regulations than we do. It's cheaper and easier for them to pump it across the United States, because there's really no downside for them environmentally. Anything goes wrong, fuck it, that's our problem, not theirs. If it all goes to hell, it's tar sands oil, so it doesn't even qualify as "oil" in the regulations, and they're not even responsible for the costs of the cleanup!

Simply put, it's cheaper, less of a regulatory hurdle, and less of a liability for the company to pump oil into the Gulf of Mexico than it is for them to risk spilling it on their own soil. And we made it that way for them, and now the so-called "conservative" movement wants to make it even easier.

---

Yeah, that makes sense for them. And we should go along because?

---

Oh, we shouldn't, by any stretch. But we WILL, I'm sure. Because oil companies are insisting on it. And because they're raising prices in order to put pressure on Congress and the president to push the pipeline through (which will raise gas prices more, but never mind that - we'll worry about burning that bridge when we get to it! )

Quote:

---

Still makes better sense for us to pipe it to Seattle or the Great Lakes, once it's on our side of the border, and refine it there.

---

It does, *unless* there are stricter regulations in Michigan, Illinois, Washington state, etc., than there are in North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas, at which point its cheaper to pipe it down to existing refineries in Texas. Money and markets don't flow where it "makes better sense" to go - they flow where it's cheapest, in terms of regulations, taxes, and labor. If it's cheaper for an oil company's bottom line to pollute and ruin an entire shoreline than it is to mix their cement the proper way, then guess what? That shoreline is getting ruined, toot-sweet, like yesterday.

Oil companies do not care about you, your family, your health, your environment, or your economy. They don't have to. They only have to worry about money: theirs (how to get more of it) and yours (how to get more of it).

As Signy or Rue use to say in her sig line, "Never think they give a shit." We only have a very few ways to MAKE THEM give a shit, and that's through force of law and regulation and taxes. Relying on their goodwill and the purity of self-interest and the free market is a one-way ticket to an oil-soaked grave.

Quote:

---

It's gonna get exported, not used here, Anything other than piping it to the closest seaport puts America at greater risk, and benefits no one but foreigners and already rich American oil companies.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Niki2:
I hate that argument!
Truly a case of "bad, or worse", with nothing better to contemplate. Like there's a chance in hell of ever "putting in place a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade system"--we've been there/done that, and we saw how the right did on THAT!

Give me something to hope for, something to work toward, something that had a chance in hell of changing anything...but I know you can't...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
I'm not clear on why we want to build a pipeline from Canada all the way to Brownsville, Texas for oil to use domestically.

---