Keystone Pipeline
 

Now that the State Department has released the long-awaited report stating that the Keystone pipeline would not have a meaningful impact upon global CO2 levels, what's Obama going to do? He needs to do something for jobs, but risks alienating the environmental activist wing of his party. What should he do and what will he do?

My view is that the report is correct in that Canada isn't going to stop extracting oil from the tar sands and will somehow get it to market, whether or not we build the Keystone pipeline. We can either benefit economically from building the pipeline or let someone else do so.

As we have seen recently the alternative-transporting on the oil on trains-is not without risk either.

I was listening to Chuck Todd on the satellite radio on the way in to work...seems Obama and the GOP favor new trade agreements (fast tracking agreements) and many Dems like Reid do not...what irony.

I don't really see it as irony. I think it has more to do with the fact that most economists and realists see it as advantageous to our economy, while frightful to organized labor. At this point, Obama is no longer running for office, so he's inclined to do the right thing as opposed to kowtowing to labor.

The Alaska pipeline is past it's service time and there is no talk of replacing any of it. Just use drones to catch hopefully the start of a major eco-disaster is all I have heard.
I can't get behind it for this reason alone. A train car run off the tracks and may not even leak a drop and regardless can only leak so much. Our best long term option IMO.


Carl

Our population and energy demand is going to do nothing but grow. The more modern our infrastructure is the more competitive we'll be. Build it.

Pete

Meh, spend the money rebuilding the Alaskan pipeline. It is much more important the the USA than building a pipeline to Texas refineries that refine that crap oil for EXPORT.


Carl

Pipelines are monitored for leakage and any leak can be sectioned off via valves. Of all methods of oil transport from ships to rail to trucks to pipelines, pipelines are probably the safest. For example, far more oil was spilled by the Exxon Valdez in one incident (up to 750,000 barrels) than in the biggest Alaska pipeline leak (16,000 barrels). And then there's the Deepwater Horizon (~5 million barrels). Also, trains use existing tracks, many of which run through cities where accidents are more harmful than in rural areas (refer to the recent Quebec derailment carrying crude oil that killed 50 people). Unfortunately, there is no perfectly safe manner to transport large quantities of oil.

The environmentalists' major complaint about the Keystone pipeline is the production process to convert the tar sands to crude oil, not pipeline leakage. This won't change if the Canadians build a pipeline to Vancouver or ship it by rail elsewhere. As long as the Canadians continue to exploit this resource, the method of its transport isn't the issue. That said, the pipeline is probably the safest and cheapest method and would provide necessary jobs in the US for its construction, operations, and maintenance.

I would say at this point even a few thousand well paying jobs that are long term would help our economy. Hopefully the technology in autos will continue to improve where we can reduce our reliance on oil. Finnbow's right the Canadians are not going to stop.

I was just talking my own personal view of things, I realize it isn't popular with hardly anybody.


Carl