[Beskargam]

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2013/04/23/oil-money-politics-keystone-xl-hits-a-snag/?iref=allsearch

Looking for thoughts on the whole project. Disclaimer, I am majoring in Environmental Science, but I frequently find my opinions uninformed and thus challenged when reading/posting in debates here; I look forward to input to on this issue for that reason.

• The hold up on the implementation of the project seems to be the increased amount of GHG produced which seems kind like a strange argument. Is the oil-sand NOT going to be   mined if the pipeline isn't completed? I would guess unlikely. The article and State Dept paper even mention that the oil will likely be transported by rail. Which means there will be GHG regardless of the project being built...
• Next the point about not wanting any oil spilling into the oogalala is a good point I think. It would be devastating not only to the environment, but also to the farmers in the region if that got even moderately contaminated.

• The article mentions that proponents say that it would reduce the oil we import from the middle east and Venezuela. As I believe MP-Ryan likes to mention, the US does not get most of its imported oil form the middle east. Most of it comes from South/Latin America and Canada already... http://www.npr.org/2012/04/11/150444802/where-does-america-get-oil-you-may-be-surprised
  
• Kinda a side note, but it was mentioned in the article;I don't see the world getting to ~350 ppm CO2 anytime soon....even IF the tech was 100% there, which I'm not convinced it is, the infrastructure, political will, and popular will is not.

Also on the matter of oil pipeline spills that are not underwater, is it feasible to have a coagulant in the pipe? Say, something that reacts with oxygen to harden/increase viscosity to the point where a leak/breach would be either stopped or slowed?  Small leaks would probably be stopped altogether, and breaches might end up completely blocking up the pipe until the breach is repaired? I am not over familiar with oil pipeline mechanics.

And this post is undergoing a ridiculous number of edits as I find more information to talk about or can't stand my spelling or grammar mistakes[/list] * can't seem to get rid of this list thing at the end here

[SpardaSon21]

If the oil is going to get processed, shipped and used regardless of what we in America do, we might as well try and get a piece of the pie by having the pipeline.

[MP-Ryan]

My problem with oil pipelines in general is - based on my experiences in this field - they leak.  Companies spend lots of money and time, and yet human error, equipment failure, and the sheer distances involved mean that there are always going to be leaks and they have a good probability of being big problems.

Therefore, I don't object to pipelines, but I do feel all levels of government need to quit being so hands-off in the regulatory world and actually take a serious interest in regulating pipeline standards.  Right now the regulatory world around pipelines (of which my job is a part) is very piecemeal.

The objections as to source are, frankly, idiotic.  For one, the oil sands are demonized by one side and lauded by the other.  From my experience in the area, the truth lies in the middle.  Basically, if people want to eliminate production from the oil sands, they'd better have an alternative to fossil fuels.

As for GHG emissions, the City of Toronto emits far more GHGs than the entirety of the oilsands development in Alberta, which (contrary to popular belief) incorporates a much larger area than just the region around Ft. McMurray and the Athabasca river.  There is oil sands development stretching from Peace River to Cold Lake.

Basically, I wouldn't have an objection to Keystone XL so long as the operating company has hefty conditions on it to prevent spills beyond the current legislation in force.  I would certainly prefer a pipeline to rail transport.  Train derailments are typically much worse than pipeline breaks - while they are fewer, they tend to be much more catastrophic.  In general, so long as the states and countries involved enforce their existing legislation diligently and perhaps add additional requirements, the pipeline is a no-brainer from an economics, environmental, and security perspective.

EDIT:  I love CNN.  "The pipeline from Alberta, Canada to Steele City, Nebraska."  FIVE Nebraska's can fit inside the province of Alberta.  Think you might want to be a little more precise on where that pipe is actually coming from?

[Catecholamine]

Steele City

You'd think they'd have had a contingency for this.

[deathfun]

Train derailments are typically much worse than pipeline breaks - while they are fewer, they tend to be much more catastrophic.

They also tend to be less predictable in where and when

Companies spend lots of money and time, and yet human error, equipment failure, and the sheer distances involved mean that there are always going to be leaks and they have a good probability of being big problems.

Easiest way to put people's mind at ease isn't the massive amounts of "This is what we have in place so it doesn't happen," but "This is what have in place when it DOES happen in order to mitigate the damage"

Oil spills are going to happen so long as we keep using oil, either by tanker, train or pipeline.

[bobbtmann]

I think the hope from environmentalists is that by not having the pipeline, it will hinder the development of the tar sands. It won't stop them, but it might make them less desirable, which would slow down development, which in turn would reduce GHG emissions. The slower the tar sands are developed, the more likely we'll have a viable alternative before the oil is out of the ground.

There's already talk of the "bitumen" bubble, where we're digging it out of the ground faster than we can sell it, reducing the value. Personally, I'd love it if we'd slow down the development of the tar sands. The majority of the jobs associated with this industry is in plant construction. Building a single plant can employ 7000+ people for five years, but after that who knows? The plant operators and maintenance staff are not nearly that numerous. Aside from turn arounds (which happen for a month or so every year), the number of jobs is not that high. It would be better to hire people for their lives, rather than for a couple decades or so.

Another stupid thing is, the tar sand industry is working so hard to accelerate the pace of mining, they've got a shortage of workers. So we're importing workers to speed up the inevitable loss of jobs that comes with the end of plant construction.

I do not support the XL and the Northern Gateway pipelines (except maybe the one to the maritimes). Pipelines are safer than trains, but I'd rather the oil be dug out a lot slower.