Environmentally Sound Canada-U.S. Oil Pipeline Could Be Completed in 2013
- Posted on August 27, 2011 at 12:27pm by
Tiffany Gabbay
- Print »
- Email »
WASHINGTON (The Blaze/AP) — The Obama administration on Friday removed a major roadblock to a planned $7 billion oil pipeline from western Canada to the Texas coast, saying in a report that the project is unlikely to cause significant environmental problems during construction or operation.
The thousand-page report by the State Department says the proposed 1,700-mile Keystone XL pipeline would have no significant environmental impacts on most natural resources in its six-state path.
Calgary-based TransCanada wants to build a massive pipeline to carry crude oil extracted from tar sands in Alberta to refineries in Texas. The pipeline, which would travel through Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas and Oklahoma, would carry an estimated 700,000 barrels of oil a day, doubling the capacity of an existing pipeline from Canada. Supporters say it could significantly reduce U.S. dependence on Middle Eastern oil.
The project has become a flashpoint for environmental groups who say the pipeline would bring “dirty oil” that requires huge amounts of energy to extract and could cause an ecological disaster in case of a spill. Opponents of the pipeline have urged the Obama administration to block the project as a sign he is serious about protecting the environment.
Several hundred activists, including actress Margot Kidder and prominent scientists, have been arrested in recent days in protests outside the White House. Organizers say the protests are the largest acts of civil disobedience centered on the environment in many years.
TransCanada maintains that the project would create tens of thousands of jobs and would be built to strict environmental standards, including 57 conditions above those required by law.
For example, the company has agreed to build much of the pipeline 4 feet below ground, instead of the usual 3 feet. Depths would increase to 25 feet below the riverbed at more than a dozen major river crossings along the proposed route, including the Yellowstone and Missouri rivers. The pipeline would be built 5 feet underground at several hundred smaller waterways.
TransCanada also said it will allow an increased number of inspections and install a greater number of safety shut-off valves than usual.
The State Department report cites those conditions as among the reasons for its confidence in the project. The report endorses the current proposed route, which has drawn criticism from officials in Nebraska and other states because it passes through the Ogallala Aquifer, an environmentally sensitive formation that provides groundwater to eight states in the Great Plains.
Kerri-Ann Jones, an assistant secretary of state, said the report was “not a rubber stamp for this project,” adding, “No decision has been made.”
The report, the third environmental analysis submitted by the State Department since last year, kicks off a 90-day review of whether the project is in the “national interest” before a final decision is issued by the end of the year.
If approved by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, the pipeline could be completed in 2013. The department has authority over the project because it crosses an international boundary.
In in its analysis, the State Department dismissed concerns from environmental groups that the pipeline would increase emissions of greenhouse gases blamed for global warming. Canada’s oil sands are likely to be developed with or without the pipeline, the report said, making concerns about climate change moot.
“There are alternatives to the pipeline to move that potential fuel around” to other locations, Jones said, including barges, railways and tanker ships.
The American Petroleum Institute said the report brought the pipeline one step closer to reality. Charles Drevna, president of the National Petrochemical & Refiners Association, said the pipeline would “bring American consumers a sure and steady supply of oil from our close friend and neighbor Canada.”
James Hansen, a NASA scientist who was an early crusader against climate change, said allowing the Keystone XL pipeline would be like accepting a dirty needle from a fellow oil addict, Canada.
“If Obama chooses the dirty needle it will confirm that Obama was just greenwashing all along, with no real intention of solving the addiction,” he said.
Popular Stories
Does Misstated Marathon Claim Prove Paul Ryan Is Dishonest? (POLL) 688 Comments
‘Jumah at the DNC’ Speaker: ‘Muslims Visited America Prior to Columbus’ & ‘It Was a Muslim’ Who Guided Him to the ‘New World’ 536 Comments
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 455 Comments
Obama: RNC Like Watching ‘Black-and-White TV’ Because Romney ‘Did Not Offer a Single New Idea’ 374 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 333 Comments
Faith
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 300 Comments- Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More
- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 311 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 206 Comments- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 148 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 301 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 300 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (120)
Gypsy123
Posted on August 27, 2011 at 2:09pmWow enviromentally sound pipe line Huummm EPA will find something wrong with it mark my words.
Report Post »turkey13
Posted on August 27, 2011 at 2:55pmThis only applies to other countries! The EPA would find a significant environmental impact if it was mining shell rock in the USA. There is a large diamond mine that employes thousands of workers in Canada that stops at the Wyoming border. The company has been going through the courts for over 5 years to mine in the USA but can’t. A half million people could have work here if not for the EPA and the tree huggers. Just the tax $$$$ probably would be 50 to 100 million dollars. The 6 most polluted citys in the world are in China. We used to be the 2nd largest gold producer but now are 6th.
Report Post »Chuck Stein
Posted on August 27, 2011 at 4:50pm@ Turkey13
Report Post »You mean “Montana”, right? Wyoming does not border Canada.
asybot12
Posted on August 27, 2011 at 5:46pmHi to all of you posting this as “foreign” oil Canada is already your biggest trading partner in both directions, most of live within a 100 mile strip north of the 49th. We largely think along the same lines especially since we now have a conservative gov. It is to bad that we have not more refining power in NA so to be effective this has to go to Texas.I also agree with the gent from Saskatchewan years ago they put a line ACROSS OUR FARM AS WELL, COULD NOT TELL WHERE WHEN THE WERE FINISHED. So get on with it green power will takes decades to be viable if ever.
Report Post »saranda
Posted on August 27, 2011 at 11:41pmTurkey13 – even if you meant Montana, there are no diamond mines operating in southern Alberta or Saskatchewan so your story is fabricated and badly. Canadian diamond mines are in the Northwest Territories which does not border any US states. There is diamond exploration going on in many provinces but no production out NWT.
Report Post »Meyvn
Posted on August 27, 2011 at 2:08pmSo how is digging up 1700 miles of earth to bury a pipe more environmentally sound that a few drills in our own backyard? Leaks aside. Crass.
Report Post »saranda
Posted on August 27, 2011 at 11:45pmBecause despite what people like Dr. Bachmann say, our energy reserves outside Alaska are limited to massive shale gas finds and some smaller oil which is mostly being exploited by Canadian companies because we lag well behind them in understanding how to economically extract the oil within our own borders. The Oilsands (not tarsands) may be the largest deposit in the world of oil and if we don’t access the Chinese will as just last week another pipeline moved forward. This one to move liquids through the west coast of Canada to Asian markets. We better get our act together or Canadian oil will not flow south forever.
Report Post »jedidiah
Posted on August 27, 2011 at 1:22pmFor the Luddites and trolls amongst you outraged by the pipeline, your fellow travelers over at the Daily Kos are forming a caravan to protest starting in TX as I recall. Grab a dime bag and join the fun!
Yes, I read the Daily Kos . . . daily. There is frankly a generally higher level of discussion over there — they do not tolerate trolls or non-believers so the threads remain on point — but, while surprisingly literate, it’s just so damn mindless that I find it very entertaining. It is the highest indictment of educational indoctrination you’ll ever see. That’s especially true since Dear Leader has become such a disappointment to them; they even call him a Republican! There is much sentiment to primary him and run a “true Progressive!!!”
Imagine; it’s not easy even if you try!
Report Post »rangerp
Posted on August 27, 2011 at 1:38pm@jedidiah
You are on to something. People will claim that the lib blogs and lib only news will have higher intelect. I believe there is a simple answer on that one.
Look at who votes republican/conservative – it is business owners, and simple hard working middle class Americans. Some have college degrees, some are just high school grads. We are the ones who support the military, pay our taxes, provide small business. Foiks like us end up watching Fox news, reading the blaze
Now look and see who votes democrat/liberal. You have the masses, the lowest 40%, the ones who do not pay taxes, the ones who soak up the welfare, the criminal element, and you also have academia and the hollywood crowd. The masses do not blog, or even watch news. They are busy watching the MTV, Jersey Shore, Oprah, Jerry, American Idol. They are uneducated and ignorant. The libs that do wathc news, are the godless heathen from the world of academia. They claim to be enlightened, but can not debate their way out of a wet paper bag. They claim to be open minded, but are like mindless robots.
Just my opinion.
Report Post »SamIamTwo
Posted on August 27, 2011 at 2:53pmMost literate people do have their differences. I don’t understand the gang mentality. Sounds illiterate to be exclusive. Sounds like a cult trying to control the free thought of others.
The net is herding people into separate and distinct beliefs. This so called, if you don’t believe what I tell you then you are an illiterate mentality is absurd stupidity boiled up in arrogance to control the week minded. MOO JIMHO
Let meaningful discussion begin without the hateful words.
I bet if you actually went to the tav to meet some of these net nuts they would seem entirely different. Have a beer, shoot some pool and have a meaningful discussion. But those were the good old days…we’ve evolved to the net. pfft.
Report Post »kindling
Posted on August 27, 2011 at 1:19pmIf it could be taken through areas known for US oil reserves the pipe line could be used by others like an electrical gird. If the oil can flow freely so can people’s imaginations and the sooner we will figure out ways to make energy safer and cheaper. After all……..it is the American way, we are THE BEST!
Report Post »kentuckypatriot
Posted on August 27, 2011 at 1:15pmSo, let me get this straight: If Canada is building this thing through our states to refine, are we going to get any of the oil, or is it strickly for Canadian use only? I’m confused. In addition, the article talks about our BFF Canada. Geez, I didn’t think we had any friends left! PSST.. don’t tell frankenGORE about this, he may have a heart attack… (wishful thinking)
Report Post »Mil Mom
Posted on August 29, 2011 at 11:27pm@kentuckypatriot
Report Post »Posted on August 27, 2011 at 1:15pm
So, let me get this straight: If Canada is building this thing through our states to refine, are we going to get any of the oil, or is it strickly for Canadian use only?
***
Since it‘s discovery Canada’s been offering to sell us oil from these reserves, but this administration’s been dragging their feet about making a decision, (Imagine that!) Last month, Canada told us we‘d better make a decision soon because China’s interested in buying the oil. (Oh and the pipeline to the West Coast still has to go in if China gets the oil. (Let‘s see the wacko’s protest that when they need China to not sell of our debt!) Either BO needs to make some more effort to look energy effecient or he’s planning on forcing Hillary to refuse to let the pipeline to TX go forward. She looks like a big loser and he’s still got the vote for the primaries. Could play out several ways there!
felix
Posted on August 27, 2011 at 1:14pmget er done !!!!
Report Post »thecrow
Posted on August 27, 2011 at 1:10pmAnd when will this pipeline be completed?
http://michaelfury.wordpress.com/2009/05/11/the-gas-must-flow/
Report Post »Steverino
Posted on August 27, 2011 at 1:07pmI don’t get it. On some articles. the comments are arranged oldest to newest, on others, the opposite. Maybe The Blaze has some kinks to work out…
Report Post »Steve
dscon
Posted on August 27, 2011 at 2:04pmthere is a drop down box at the top of the comments…
Report Post »pick “newest to oldest” or old to new
Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}
Posted on August 27, 2011 at 1:07pmMr Obama will have this thing killed in the end, look at what the article says about there being a 90 day review/waiting period. The only other possiblility I can see happening is that Mr Obama will wait until the pipe is well under way and then order it killed to collaspe the investments made within it and place the blame competely upon the American people.
Also, this is not taking into account the eco-fanatics who will probably tie this up in court for years via the liberal bleeding hearted judges friendly to the administration.
Report Post »http://artinphoenix.com/gallery/grimm (cat folk gallery)
banjarmon
Posted on August 27, 2011 at 1:03pmWhen SARAH becomes POTUS the pipe lins would be in place to drill The Bakken Formation in North Dakota. We would not need the opec oil and then opec can eat it for food.
Report Post »SJR
Posted on August 27, 2011 at 12:56pmI grew up on a farm in SK that has multiple pipe lines running through the fields. I can remember Trans Canada putting in a new pipe line in the 80′s – you couldn’t tell that they had been there after they had finished.
Report Post »rangerp
Posted on August 27, 2011 at 1:03pmwatch the libs/dems/progressives/ crap thier pants on this one. They hate it when we get our own oil/energy, and do not have to rely on someone else. Notice they always want alternate power sources, but see how much Gore/Kennedys/Clintons/Pelosi/Kerry…. have invested in alternate power research? They may be socialist, but they know not to throw away their money.
Until I can fill my car up with rainbow power, and drive around town, keep piping in the oil
Report Post »Steverino
Posted on August 27, 2011 at 1:05pmI am a simple man. A big fan of Occam’s Razor.
Why doesn’t somebody just build refineries in Montana? That would save a fortune, and create many, many jobs in an area that is (I’m assuming) very sparsely populated?
Anybody?
Steve
Report Post »Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}
Posted on August 27, 2011 at 1:08pm@Steve — In a nutshell the administration wants to destroy the economy, and if they approved the building of new refineries, owned and operated by citizens of the US and not foreign powers, then it would benefit private businesses, making people less dependant on the Fed’s in that area.
Report Post »Rational Man
Posted on August 27, 2011 at 2:03pmSteverino
Posted on August 27, 2011 at 1:05pm
I am a simple man. A big fan of Occam’s Razor.
Why doesn’t somebody just build refineries in Montana? That would save a fortune, and create many, many jobs in an area that is (I’m assuming) very sparsely populated?
Anybody?
Because Montana has become a rich man’s, enviromentalist’s playground. That is almost word for word what a former governor of Mt. told me to my face once in 1995. California migration and influence.
Report Post »Maybe you read the article on The Blaze the other day about a guy who is facing 2yrs in jail for protecting his kids from a grizzly buy shooting it?
And the recent oil spill on the Yellowstone river at Laurel, Mt. didn’t help improve sentiments much either!
Montana has become a flamming progressive, enviormentalist state and “playground” for the rich!…..Just ask a former roughneck, miner, logger or a rancher!
Mil Mom
Posted on August 29, 2011 at 11:33pm@rangerp
Report Post »re :Until I can fill my car up with rainbow power, and drive around town, keep piping in the oil
You must not have had your Kool-Aid lately or you‘d know it’s possible! After all, Puff-The-Magic-Dragon, will let you frolic with him once you get to Hona-Lee! (May not be spelling it right!) but the lib’s just smoke that stuff, and all those dreams come true!
Mil Mom
Posted on August 29, 2011 at 11:38pm@Steverino
Posted on August 27, 2011 at 1:05pm
I am a simple man. A big fan of Occam’s Razor.
Why doesn’t somebody just build refineries in Montana? That would save a fortune, and create many, many jobs in an area that is (I’m assuming) very sparsely populated?
Anybody?
Steve
Report Post »***
Same idiots protesting this outside the WH run the EPA, they’ve refused to issue permits to build new refineries anywhere in the US for decades! Give Michelle Bachmann a chance and it could happen sooner than we’d ever imagine!
Vital
Posted on August 27, 2011 at 12:56pmPipe line is decoy…WATCH THE OTHER HAND
Report Post »paulusmaximus
Posted on August 27, 2011 at 2:40pmYES! Got to be a trick.
Report Post »SamIamTwo
Posted on August 27, 2011 at 2:54pmHey now it is going to be election year soon and Obama has to appease the majority some time. LOL
Report Post »Rational Man
Posted on August 27, 2011 at 2:55pmSeems pretty plain and open to me! Piping foreign oil into the US from Canada instead of producing our own and building refineries. More foreign energy dependence. Isn’t that bad enough for you?
Report Post »Canadianaleye
Posted on August 27, 2011 at 6:10pm@ Rational Man.
Report Post »FOREIGN OIL.Dude I’m guessing you think all we do is use dog sleds for transportation and eat seal meat for dinner but we are one in the same, save for a line on a map.I agree the US should drill baby drill however that isn’t happening anytime soon.So whats say you scratch our back and we scratch yours.
Rational Man
Posted on August 27, 2011 at 6:29pm@Canadianaleye
‘Whats say’ we, (Americans), spend our money here at home instead of giving it to Canada.
Report Post »(And I give no thought and couldn’t care less what you european style progressives eat for dinner, or what kind of transportation you use.)
Canadianaleye
Posted on August 27, 2011 at 6:45pmOh my I can only shake my head at your ignorance
Report Post »Rational Man
Posted on August 27, 2011 at 7:21pm@Canadianaleye
You can only shake your head because you can’t rationally argue with my opinion of keeping our money here instead of giving it to Canada. Sure, you say, give Canada our money to “scratch your back” instead of using our own resources. So tell me how Canada is “scratching” our back buy taking our money. In the time it takes to lay that pipeline and get online, we could have our own new wells, mines and refineries online. You say, “.I agree the US should drill baby drill however that isn’t happening anytime soon.” Well, just how long do you think it will take to lay 1,300 miles of pipe and get it online?
Report Post »I don‘t care if you think I’m ignorant for thinking the US should develop our resources instead of buying Canada’s and wasting money on a 1300 mile pipeline.
At least I have an answer!
Canadianaleye
Posted on August 27, 2011 at 7:34pmyou are right sir …protectionism always works as does your socialist ways good luck with that.
Report Post »Rational Man
Posted on August 27, 2011 at 8:25pm“socialist ways”…..(laughing)…….Now who is being ignorant?
Report Post »You got nothing so you come up with that?……(still laughing)
Mil Mom
Posted on August 29, 2011 at 11:56pm@Rational Man
Posted on August 27, 2011 at 6:29pm
@Canadianaleye
‘Whats say’ we, (Americans), spend our money here at home instead of giving it to Canada.
Report Post »(And I give no thought and couldn’t care less what you european style progressives eat for dinner, or what kind of transportation you use.)
***
Truth IS Canada has a True Conservative govenment for now anyway, AND THEY GOT PERMISSION TO DEVELOPE THE OIL SANDS. (Hate to tell you this, but we elected {or the voter fraud did} one of those european style progressives, {Really a whole mess of ‘em.} and now it‘s them who’re deciding what we eat for dinner and what kind of transportation we use! They’re {The Canadians} probably up there laughing hysterically about your post because you’d get farther living there than here in deciding yourself how to spend your own money!
tmd11111
Posted on August 27, 2011 at 12:56pmA new refinery would cost 10x as much as necessary and take 20 years to build if it ever got through the tree huggers lawsuits.
Report Post »Psychosis
Posted on August 27, 2011 at 12:54pmi dont know why the greenies are complaining …………….they should like the idea of removing all that yucky oil from that nice sand someone needs to clean up that land right ?
Report Post »endgamer
Posted on August 27, 2011 at 12:47pmI wonder if the Bilderberg group “Perry” has anything to do with this?. I also can’t believe Hillary ( another bilderberger and CFL member ) has to be in on this as well. Follow the money!
Report Post »lemmingsrnotusdamnit
Posted on August 27, 2011 at 1:18pmYou are obviously a devoted disciple of Alec Janes (see if that gets through the filters). Perhaps you should ask yourself if someone who believes in practically every conspiracy theory in existence today, is someone to be trusted.
The truth is right in front of us. Not inane, miscontrued sentences on some obscure memo or letter. Leftism has creeped into every aspect of society and politics in the west and it is destroying us. It’s as simple as that. It’s not an elaborate conspiracy. It’s simple.
Report Post »Elena2010
Posted on August 27, 2011 at 12:46pmWhy should we not use the resource — somebody will. Margot — you are such a kidder — you think the Chinese would care where the oil came from?
Report Post »Rational Man
Posted on August 27, 2011 at 12:41pmMy question is, why aren’t we developing our own oil and gas? And building refineries in the northern states that hold that oil and gas, instead of running a pipeline from Canada to Texas refineries?
Report Post »Midwest Blonde
Posted on August 27, 2011 at 12:51pmAsk Obummer – he’s got all the answers! (SARCASM)
Report Post »Vital
Posted on August 27, 2011 at 12:51pmbecause the Communist are in charge of the construction of the pipe line on top of the ground while under the ground they are digging out a tunnel to transport by rail, illegals from all countries into North America. All part of the assimilation, Earth.
Report Post »On The Bayou
Posted on August 27, 2011 at 12:59pmLouisiana and Texas have huge oilsand reserves that have recently been discovered. As soon as we get the Communist out of the White House you should alot more drilling and refining of this type of crude oil. The United States has four hundred years of oil reserves, not counting the natural gas reserves. There is also huge fields on the North Slope of Alaska that BP and Shell oil are sitting on waiting to be tapped into, I was up there last week contracting for BP. The environmentalist are standing in the way. Which are the right arm of Barac Obama. He`ll be gone shortly, Barac, Michell and the kids will be looking at Washington DC in the rear view mirror before you know it.
Report Post »bproorda
Posted on August 27, 2011 at 1:02pmBecause that would be cheaper
Report Post »Rational Man
Posted on August 27, 2011 at 1:39pmNumber of oil refineries in the northern states and daily production;
Montana = 4 = 182,500 bbl/d
North Dakota = 1 = 60,000 bbl/d
Wyoming = 5 = 158,000 bbl/d
Utah = 5 = 174,200 bbl/d
Colorado = 1= 100,000 bbl/d
Washington = 5= 618,000 bbl/d
Total = 1,292,700 bbl/d
I did not include Pennsylvania and New Jersey because of the large amount of foreign oil refined.
Includes large amounts, (mostly) foreign oil,
Texas = 26 = 4,899,640 bbl/d
California = 21 = 2,127,700 bbl/d
Louisiana = 16 = 3,152,800 bbl/d
Total = 10,180,140 bbl/d
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oil_refineries#Montana
Seems unbalanced considering we have our own “Saudi Arabia” of oil and natural gas in the northern states…..NOT TO MENTION ALASKA!!
Report Post »Rational Man
Posted on August 27, 2011 at 1:51pmIt also seems really ‘messed up’ that they want to lay that pipeline, (flowing Canadian oil), through some really good producing states that are not allowed to produce their oil!!!!!!!!!!!!
Report Post »SamIamTwo
Posted on August 27, 2011 at 2:43pmHow could we redistribute the wealth? LOL USA are the consumers of other nations manufactured goods, moo.
It’s a big farm now.
It’s the 10% of the population controlling 90%…squeaky wheel gets the oil…minority rule.
Report Post »Mil Mom
Posted on August 30, 2011 at 12:11am@Rational Man
Report Post »Posted on August 27, 2011 at 12:41pm
My question is, why aren’t we developing our own oil and gas? And building refineries in the northern states that hold that oil and gas, instead of running a pipeline from Canada to Texas refineries?
***
That is of course a “Rhetorical question”, Right?
The answer lies in who’s been running our country for so long that they think we have no right to a say in anything!, (Remember, they’re getting tired of the Tea Party!) One can only pray that if the Repub POTUS were to try to appoint judges and “abolish” the EPA they’d get it through the Congress, ESPECIALLY THE SENATE! (It’s going to take a lot of Answered prayer for that to happen! Let‘s pray that Glenn’s Bill of Responsibilities catches on and God has mercy on our nation!)
thegoldman
Posted on August 27, 2011 at 12:40pmToo bad for the tree huggers.
Get over it there is no Global warming.
But plenty of Global Warming Fraud.
Report Post »progressiveslayer
Posted on August 27, 2011 at 12:40pmThe environmentalist wackos that want to stop the pipeline would be the first one’s begging for the pipeline when gas goes to 10-15 dollars a gallon.
Report Post »Rational Man
Posted on August 27, 2011 at 2:08pmDrill here and drill now!! Build refineries in the northern producing states, now!
Report Post »Why Canadian oil?
And the enviormentalists can hang themselves!!!!!!
Canadianaleye
Posted on August 27, 2011 at 5:46pm@ Rational Man
Don’t you folk there have enough enemies, now you are trashing us Canucks? We buy your equipment
Report Post »you buy our oil.But be it here nor there our oil will be sold to whomever wants it and we certainly prefer selling to our biggest trading partner (US)
Rational Man
Posted on August 27, 2011 at 6:14pmI wouldn’t expect a foreigner to understand. But I wasn‘t trashing anyone but Obama and progressives who won’t let us develop and use our own resources.
Report Post »You can take that chip off your shoulder now………………..
Mandors
Posted on August 27, 2011 at 12:37pmDrill, baby, drill.
Report Post »crackerone
Posted on August 27, 2011 at 12:36pmB.O. will find a way to screw this up!
Report Post »YepImaConservative
Posted on August 27, 2011 at 12:36pmSeveral hundred activists, including actress [Margot Kidder] and prominent scientists, have been [arrested] in recent days in protests outside the White House.
Sure beats the cardboard she was probably living in. 3 hots and a cot for Superman’s gal.
Report Post »starman70
Posted on August 27, 2011 at 1:09pmShe can preach about environmentalism while living in a Hollywood mansion which uses more energy in a month than the average American family uses in a year.
Just another limousine liberal.
Report Post »YepImaConservative
Posted on August 27, 2011 at 1:31pmThis is the same nut who showed up in some stranger’s back yard, naked, beaten up, not knowing what day it was (blames it on bipolar disorder, or some other liberal contrived pass-the-buck disorder).
I think she’s straightened out her “act” somewhat, but yes… definately… the Hollywood Liberal sub-culture is where her head resides.
Report Post »On The Bayou
Posted on August 27, 2011 at 12:36pmDrill Baby Drill!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Report Post »Exrepublisheep
Posted on August 27, 2011 at 12:36pmWhy do we need a pipeline from montana to texas? Wouldn’t it be easier to just build a refinery in montana?
Report Post »YepImaConservative
Posted on August 27, 2011 at 12:42pmExactly.
Report Post »Canadianaleye
Posted on August 27, 2011 at 12:44pmThat would make too much sense.
Report Post »On The Bayou
Posted on August 27, 2011 at 12:45pmMotiva and Velero are and have been expanding their refineries in Port Author TX to recieve the oil from this pipeline. There is nothing in Montana, it`s beautiful but not very populated.
Report Post »Hiswill
Posted on August 27, 2011 at 12:56pmYou’re right. The farther you have to pipe this stuff, the more chances of breaks and spills. This stuff is nasty and more difficult to clean up than regular oil. Just build the refinery next to the oil.
Report Post »lemmingsrnotusdamnit
Posted on August 27, 2011 at 1:04pmThat’s a good point. I’m not an expert, but there could be infrastructure issues since Montana is sort of out in the middle of nowhere.
Report Post »jedidiah
Posted on August 27, 2011 at 1:33pmCheck into when the last refinery was built in the U.S. and you’ll have your answer. We’re so fortunate to have the flat-earth, no-growth, ecotards at the EPA, BLM, HHS, Dept. of Energy, etc, etc, ad infinitum.
Report Post »Rational Man
Posted on August 27, 2011 at 1:35pmNumber of oil refineries in the northern states and daily production;
Montana = 4 = 182,500 bbl/d
North Dakota = 1 = 60,000 bbl/d
Wyoming = 5 = 158,000 bbl/d
Utah = 5 = 174,200 bbl/d
Colorado = 1= 100,000 bbl/d
Washington = 5= 618,000 bbl/d
Total = 1,292,700 bbl/d
I did not include Pennsylvania and New Jersey because of the large amount of foreign oil refined.
Includes large amounts, (mostly) foreign oil,
Texas = 26 = 4,899,640 bbl/d
California = 21 = 2,127,700 bbl/d
Louisiana = 16 = 3,152,800 bbl/d
Total = 10,180,140 bbl/d
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oil_refineries#Montana
Report Post »Pipeliner
Posted on August 27, 2011 at 2:22pmIt does make perfectly rational sense to build a refinery as close as possible to the crude source, but
you still need to pipe the refined products to their ultimate destination which is usually close to major population sources. It is also much easier to flow refined products than it is heavy crude, but the green weenies start having puppies every time a refinery wants to even expand much less build a new additional facility.
Pipelines are by far the most cost efficient means of carrying product verses rail, trucking, etc. and after the line is installed most people will have no idea that it is even there….and the industry supports an untold amount of people and families with very well compensated employment and I am proud to be one of those people…
Report Post »Rational Man
Posted on August 27, 2011 at 2:51pm@Pipeliner
I don’t have anything against piplines as long as they are well thought out and maintained. My biggest problem with this is piping Canadian oil through states that are not allowed to produce their own oil. And the lack of refineries in the north. Texas seems to have a real good relationship with Canada too! With this and the trade corridor and all. Whats up with that?
Speaking for the northern states, we would like a piece of the pie too! And make the country stronger in the process with less foreign energy and more jobs!
But this story is about the enviormentalists and Obama mostly. So all of my arguements are pretty much moot at this point anyway. Enviormentalists control our energy and therefore our lives…………….
Report Post »Lloyd Drako
Posted on August 27, 2011 at 12:33pmNote that the pipeline runs entirely through red states. Perhaps Obama is hoping something will go wrong with it!
Report Post »