I second that motion.

Stop wasting gas by driving SUV's to protests!

Ryan: I say build it.

You have no idea the consequences of what you are saying. Would you trade oil for water? That is what it takes - millions and millions of gallons of it - to extract oil from tar sands. Get a clue before you spout off.

Personally, I will not tolerate another ecological disaster such as the Gulf Coast one, which will never be repaired to its former beauty.

We will have the oil, but in the process, we poison the land, water and air we need to breathe. Good trade off. The human species are the only ones that has the ability to make themselves extinct.

To all the ones that want the pipeline, let them put it in your backyard.

They look like a bunch of aging, wining, and sniveling NIMBY yuppies, driving their fat Escalades to the protests. Yup, leave it to the old codgers and marijuana smoking duffers to rail against anything to help our economy by bringing jobs and keeping us energy independent. Please, please, PLEASE build the pipeline and be done with it! Thanks.

Okay everybody that does not want the pipeline built give up all of your possessions that are made or delivered by convention energy sources. Feeling naked yet? Not communicating with anyone yet? Are you feeling a bit silly? Probably not because you do not understand the amounts of energy needed to keep your life style viable.

Follow the money

Who makes money on global warming

Industrials

Renewables: $243B invested 2010

Nuclear $217B invested 2010

Solar PV market $80 B 2010

Financial Houses

Carbon trading made them $142B in 2010

Green Foundations

Soros funded groups

Open Society $5 B in assets

Including the following Soros funded sub groups

Energy Action Coalition, Green for All, Natural Resource Defense Council, Alliance for Green Protection, Friends of the Earth, Earth Island Institute and finally the Tides Foundation

Green groups made the following from this

Greenpeace $300 Million

WWF $710 Million

Sierra Club 56 Million

Pew Charity Trust 360 Million

Earth First and others

Government funded Activities:

IPCC & other UN groups (WMO UNEP UNFCC) Government Departments(NOAA, EPA, BOM, NASA, Hadley Met Centre, Dept. of Climate Change, CSIRC Dept/ of Conservation...) And Public Broad casters Universities and Scientist Got 79 Billion for climate studies in 2010 Skeptics got a grand total of $0.00 in 2010

Then You have the Media

They automatically turn any green press release into a news item. This cause a government funded scientist opnion or best guess to become an undeniable fact. Any Independent scientist not in the green macine are ignored and labled as fringe, extremist and in denial.

All of the above was paid by the public.

And in the end no global warming since 1998 none yet CO2 has doubled....

Maybe the sun is causing it?

I agree with you on the fact that the weather isn't being affected by pollution. HOWEVER, that does not make destroying our planet with chemicals, etc. the right thing to do.

"Global warming" is a distraction from the real environmental issues.

Regardless, protesting the oil sands is the right thing to do. Dependence on foreign oil (even from Canada) is not the way to go. Start building more natural gas-powered vehicles. That makes us independent. Just ask T-bone Pickens!

Keystone is a stupid idea. It would be cheaper to build refining capacity in North Dakota than pipe the oil to Oklahoma and Texas. New refining capacity in North Dakota would support the new oil extraction in North Dakota and keep the oil in the United States. It would be better for the environment, too.

The southern oil producing states are now competing with extraction elsewhere in the country. Keystone is about trying to keep Gulf oil competitive. Keystone is a subsidy for the south ...

You can read my other post but I wand to tell you smart, folks, we will not receive any of this oil. read!

Build two of them

Let the oil flow! What these "with nothing better to do" tree huggers don't seem to get is at least this project will be controlled by Canada and the USA. If anyone can do it safely, it's us.

Or would you prefer being blind to how oil is produced and managed. Just how environmentally safe do you think the middle east or Venezuela does it?! Oil is plentiful, and we should be developing it to its full potential! It doesn't do us any good in the ground. Besides, not all of us want to drive around in a butt-ugly-coffin-on-four-wheels Prius - or equivalent!

And the icing on the cake is a LOT of good paying jobs. It's a win-win!!

SteveYo said;

I agree with you on the fact that the weather isn't being affected by pollution. HOWEVER, that does not make destroying our planet with chemicals, etc. the right thing to do.

Sorry, mankind could never never destroy planet earth. She will go on just fine and dandy for billions and billions of years after we are gone. She's been through much worse than some man-made chemicals. I am much more worried about the radical extreme religious groups and the annihilation they could bring, than sucking a little bit of oil out of the ground!

Hopeful American

Let the oil flow! What these "with nothing better to do" tree huggers don't seem to get is at least this project will be controlled by Canada and the USA. If anyone can do it safely, it's us.

Or would you prefer being blind to how oil is produced and managed. Just how environmentally safe do you think the middle east or Venezuela does it?! Oil is plentiful, and we should be developing it to its full potential! It doesn't do us any good in the ground. Besides, not all of us want to drive around in a butt-ugly-coffin-on-four-wheels Prius - or equivalent!

And the icing on the cake is a LOT of good paying jobs. It's a win-win!!

So, since the other oil producers @!$%# in their front yard, we should, too? No thanks.

HA (appropriate acronym)

Denial is just another form of ignorance.

"If anyone can do it safely, it's us." Very funny, Valdez, Deepwater Horizon, et al.

As I was saying: denial.

After reading all the posts here I now realize that we are truly doomed to destroy ourselves and our precious planet.

"But it will provide jobs and give us energy for another 100 years!"

REALLY!?? 100 more years? What do we do after that? Oh that's right, no one cares because they will all be DEAD in 100 years! Who cares what the planet is like after we die?

I DO!!!!!!!!!!!! All of you greedy, me me me me, right wing morons make me sick! What are you going to do when you go to your tap and turn the handle and NOTHING comes out? Think about it!

The oil from the tar sands is either gonna go to us or china.. Once that pipeline is built to the US or to the port, there isnt any going back.. There is no way to stop it.. In other words the protesters are betraying the US and supporting China..

I hope we are never able to lay claim to the arctic oil reserves because we will never be able to drill it.. What has this country become when they are protesting good paying jobs?!!!

Keystone is a stupid idea. It would be cheaper to build refining capacity in North Dakota than pipe the oil to Oklahoma and Texas. New refining capacity in North Dakota would support the new oil extraction in North Dakota and keep the oil in the United States. It would be better for the environment, too.

The southern oil producing states are now competing with extraction elsewhere in the country. Keystone is about trying to keep Gulf oil competitive. Keystone is a subsidy for the south ...

ROGLMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Try building a refinery for 7 Billion. Isn't happening. If it could be done, then this discussion wouldn't exist.

The last one built cost 10 Billion and can only process 400,000 Barrels per day.

Now, why does it cost so much to build an Oil refinery?

And then you are going to tell me that "Trucking" all that refined gas from North Dakota is "Good" for the environment. I'm sure Tanker Trucks never have accidents and spill their goods. How many thousands of times does that happen per year? Yep, that is surely more safe than a pipeline.

That 50+ year old pipeline in Alaska has been an ecological disaster, hasn't it?????

EFFING IDIOCRACY!!!!!!!!

OK, I have a deal for the protestors and their blithering sympathizers commenting herein:

We'll cancel the pipeline construction, if you'll get rid of your furnace, stove, water heater, and car.......ok?

The BP oil spill cost the American taxpayers over $40 billion. What could POSSIBLY go wrong?

I live in Kansas and I say go for it. Proper maintenance should HELP ensure pollution is kept to a minimum. It's not like we could expect a tornado or earthquake to cause damage. Oh yea, we do have hundreds of tornadoes and even earthquakes. I still say go for it.

YouJustSaidWhat said;

So, since the other oil producers @!$%# in their front yard, we should, too? No thanks.

So are you ready to give up your refrigerator, oven, electric lights, heater, air conditioner, phone, computer, car, water heater, and many other day-to-day conveniences that suck up energy including oil, coal and natural gas? I didn't think so!

We can't be at the mercy of the middle-east anymore. Or is it you are one that is fine with sucking up resources, but you have the not-in-my-backyard mentality? Either stand by your principles or admit that you to like the conveniences that energy development enables. You can't have it both ways, unless you are happy being a hypocrite.

SteveYo:

Your ignorance and hypocrisy is that you claim to care about the earth but you don't mind using an energy sucking computer (along with I'm sure, all the other conveniences in life I mention in my post #1.25).

By the way, Valdez is now fine. Check it out sometime.

Questions:

1. Will the pipeline provide oil for the United States and NOT export?

2. The pipeline itself, enclosed as it is, surely is not itself a major environmentalist concern, is it? I'd like that explained to me... mmm in simple terms that my pore brain can understand. In comparison, that is, to importing the oil. And providing jobs for our unemployed here at home. Things like that.

Remember, OPEC (Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries) is not an ally of ours... This cost-setting organization is a cluster of 12 oil producing countries of the Middle East and Ecuador, Indonesia, and Valenzuela, dedicated to their monopoly on oil, and who take the blasted RIGHT to set the costs!

Look 'em up: useconomy.about.com/od/glossary/g/OPEC.htm and also useconomy.about.com/od/commoditiesmarketfaq/p/high_oil_prices.htm

Just to mention: oil prices were about $70 per barrel in 1960s when they formed their alliance to keep the price of oil up. And we provided the technology... our men going over there to train them .... you know the drill.

Today, they charge us $115.00/barrel and more (that is a 2010 figure) and we still have the cost of shipping the stuff over here and paying our men overseas to do the brain work.

They have gone bonkers and I personally want the U.S.A. to boycott OPEC. We are their hugest customers. Get rid of them. Use our own oil. We have lots and lots, folks.. not just up in Trans-Alaska, but off our own coasts. And the North Sea ... and if Central America are good we may even consider buying from them. And what kind of deal will British Petroleum in the Caribbean give us?

Anything is better than OPEC.

And you environmentalists. It is time to do your homework. Our technology surpasses anything developed by the native Middle Easterners. Do you really know what you are talking about in your demonstrations against our pipeline?

Are you all citizens of the U.S.A.? It sounds pretty anti-American to me.

The potential production of useable petroleum, new jobs, the doubtful improvement of the economy, and the "Middle East versus USA" mentality aside:

Q1: WHY doesn't the corporation merely build the Processing Plant right there at, or relatively close to, the site of the Tar Sands? What the corporation intends to do in building this inane pipeline is absolutely nonsensical and will be truly wasteful of any and all resources involved.

Q2: WHY do I have to always be the one to provide all the sensible freebie answers that are never acted upon?

I have it on good authority that producing petroleum from tar sand isn't worth all the wastage of resources/labor/$ that is put into it. Then again, there are several well-developed vehicle and fuel technologies that the automobile & petroleum industries will not allow to see the light of day...

A couple facts...Trans canada pipeline is really just a company that builds and maintains pipelines.....they dont make oil..
It isnt quite as simplistic as a pipe running to some Hole.There is currently 1.25 million barrels a day produced there and is projected to rise to 5 million in the future.
The Athabasca oil sands are the second largest proven oil reserves in the world next to Saudi Arabias'.
It cost about 70 dollars to produce oil sands oil.
Saudi Oil might cost 15 dollars to produce a barrel.
Cost to protect and secure middle East oil. A hellav lot.
Texas has the refineries and the people to do the job.
America really cant afford to not be connected to this local secure and vast energy resource.
Canadians pay world prices for their gas plus taxes. Presently 1.17 per litre.

Q2: WHY do I have to always be the one to provide all the sensible freebie answers that are never acted upon?

Another clueless "progressive" who doesn't know what he's talking about so it isn't at all surprising that he can't understand why the whole world isn't listening to him. Go figure.

If they build the plant near the sands, then they have to truck or pipe the GASOLINE out of the middle of nowhere. Piping the gasoline is much more expensive and dangerous than piping the oil. Same thing for the Dakotas. There's no deepwater harbor in North Dakota.

Unbelievable. Just. How. Stupid. Some. People. Are. Who. Screech. All. Night. About. The. Secret. Convoluted. Conspiracies. That. Silence. Them.

When simple common sense is all it takes to reveal the abject shallowness of their egotistical idiocy and the unlikeliness that any thinking person would agree with such brainless notions as they routinely put forth without a moment's reflection or so much as cautious hesitation.

Another product of the lesbian teachers' unions rides off into the oblivion for which he was indoctrinated.

My understanding was that this is a Koch project, built with steel from India and piped to Mexico then sent overseas.

One congressman who won’t be receiving any gifts from the Kochs anytime soon is U.S. Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., the top Democrat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, who is calling for an investigation into Koch Industries’ denials that it stands to profit from the Keystone XL pipeline.

“When I first raised this issue in May, representatives from Koch denied any interest in the pipeline and Chairman Upton called the idea that there could be a link between Koch and the pipeline an ‘outrageous accusation’ and a ‘blatant political sideshow,’” Waxman wrote in a recent letter to committee chairmen Fred Upton, R-Mich., and Ed Whitfield, R-Ky. “Recently, however, I have become aware of evidence that appears to contradict the assertions of the Koch representatives and Chairman Upton. If members of the Committee were misled by Koch, that is a serious matter that deserves prompt and thorough investigation.”

Republicans on the committee are pressuring the White House to quickly approve TransCanada Corp.’s pipeline, which would transport crude oil from Canada’s oil sands to U.S. Gulf Coast refineries.

***************************************************************

WASHINGTON | Mon Jul 11, 2011 4:00pm EDT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - TransCanada Corp, a company that hopes to build a $7 billion pipeline to take crude from Canada's oil sands to Texas, has underestimated the number and volume of leaks that could occur on the duct and hurt water supplies, an analysis released on Monday said.

Stansbury's analysis, which looked at federal data on the incidence of spills on similar pipelines, said the duct would likely average 91 major spills of over 50 barrels, including 12 spills from holes greater than 10 inches over its 50-year lifetime. TransCanada has estimated the line would have major spills about 11 times.

I say don't build it!!!! Then everyone have your electricity disconnected and park your car. This is like the movie stars who fly their private jets half way around the world to rail against energy usage and global warming.

Just some Information for those who like to agree with building the pipe line.

We have a large underground fresh water aquifer that's called Ogallala Aquifer also known as the High Plains Aquifer that runs under 8 states South Dakota, Nebraska, Wyoming, Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Texas. It yields about 30 percent of the nation's ground water used for irrigation. In addition, the aquifer system provides drinking water to 82 percent of the people who live within the aquifer boundary. Out of those 8 states the pipe line will run threw 4 of those States South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas. Now heres a question.

What would happen to all that fresh water if this Pipe Line Bust Opens?

Amazing. It might just as well as said;

"Thousand protest in favor of higher prices for gasoline".

Limiting our sources for fuel makes the prices go higher. Do people actually understand the simple relationship between 'Supply and Demand'?

"What would happen to all that fresh water if this Pipe Line Bust Opens?"

Nothing. It would be cleaned up since it doesn't seep into the ground. You must be one of those people who think that if you dropped a pound of salt into the great lakes it would 'poison' the lakes forever.

These are the same people that bitch about high gas prices, and would be first in line for a job...LOL

"What would happen to all that fresh water if this Pipe Line Bust Opens?"

Roy I agree, Especially raw product. However if it were refined in Canada or piped as refined product through those states it would make quite a difference in such an imaginary clean up. That is why this pipeline offers the best way to transport oil from Canada and the Northern States to the refineries.

It avoids the Exon Valdez problems let alone the problems of over the road transport, where the smallest accident could be impossible to control or clean up.

Creating energy of any sort is risky even if just from natural disasters. For those folks who do not want any forms of energy, I suggest they cease to exist. If enough do this then we won't require that power. Otherwise shut up and work to create energy safely.

Amazing that there are backers for this kind of INFRASTRUCTURE to perpetuate reliance on oil.

Where are the backers for high speed trains....or improvements to airports,.....or mass transportation systems?

Any $$$ for solar power...or a plan to use solar on all new buildings?

A pipe is the solution?....Seriously?

Seems like there is BIG MONEY out there for BIG OIL...and apparently the banks are willing to finance this.

Ironic....or politics as usual?

Seems like quite a few sheep are here today. Answer these two questions and I will support your pipeline and go away. They're really the same question presented in different directions with my same conclusion.

1) If this oil is meant for use in the United States, why don't they build a processing plant and refinery near where the oil originates and ship it from there? Or to the closest access to good land routes?

2) Why do we need to transport oil all the way across country to the best "export" location possible if it for U.S. consumption? What guarantees do we have that it will be for our use and for reducing our imports?

Answer: Because they fully intend to export the oil and gas like they do today with oil and gas that already originates here... take it to New Orleans and it gets lost in the crowd... no new permits... no new attention... make billions by exporting to everyone else but us.

Help me out here.

LMarcT: That's correct. We will not see a drop of the oil, unless it's spilled, of course.

The latest update on the BP Horizon well "leak" (volcano, actually) in the Gulf Coast is that it was not capped properly and fresh oil is LEAKING AGAIN which is coming ashore in Louisiana. From the article in the Sacramento Bee:

The Gulf Coast is reeling from reports that fresh oil rising from BP's Mocando Reservoir – ground zero of last year's massive spill – is coming ashore, again. Scientists have confirmed the existence of a "second wave" of BP oil fouling Gulf waters and beaches, poisoning marine life and wildlife, and posing a grave public health risk.

Read more: http://www.sacbee.com/2011/11/06/4034577/is-bps-macondo-reservoir-leaking.html#ixzz1d272NRdE

@Absolute.Idiocracy -- Expand the Mandan refinery in ND, connect it to the Pine Bend refinery in MN, use the existing pipeline to connect to Superior refinery in WI.

The Mandan is pretty small and only set up for sweet crude but there is room for expansion. Pine Bend is one of the larger refineries in the US (sixth largest - can't confirm that). Pine Bend is fed by the Wood River pipeline - transporting oil from St. Louis. Pine Bend is also fed through a pipeline network from Alberta, Canada. I believe Koch industries operates many of the pipelines in the region.

Keystone is nothing more than a means to export North American oil. The infrastructure already exists in the northern corridor but would need expansion. Keystone is going to transport the oil south so it can be transported north again??? Keystone is a stupid idea ...

Dano - These are the same people that bitch about high gas prices, and would be first in line for a job.

God, you are ignorant!

Today's Concept for Consideration :

Hyperbole

Can you say "hyperbole"? I knew you could ....

ROY WILSON-336103

Once again, you manage to spout some pretty lousy bs. "Nothing. It would be cleaned up since it doesn't seep into the ground."

I've worked the oil industry as common laborer position while going to undergraduate school in east texas AND have worked in the oil & gas industry specifically with pipeline management. Oil seeps into the ground and saturates it, depending upon the geological formations present. Thousands of gallons of water is tainted by a mere teaspoon of crude oil.

Our Iowan farm has two major oil pipelines running through it bringing Canadian oil to southern refineries. I remember, as a child, when those pipelines went in and I shudder to thing of the potential damage to the local ponds, lakes and rivers running through the farm that would be seriously damaged by even a minor leak in the pipeline, let alone a major one.

Having said that, pipelines are more economical to transport petro-chemicals; however, and as been evident for the past quarter of a century, Big Oil now understands it is cheaper to pay for the lawsuits than it is to have responsible maintenance or review of pipeline construction. Given the lack of fortitude by Congress (or probably better yet, the bribing of congressional leaders by Big Oil), I can't trust Big Oil to ensure the safety of not only the environment but more importantly, my family's farm legacy... homesteaded in the 1880s. Big Oil's legacy is, well, let's say not a good record for safety and cleanliness.

Just look to the Yellowstone situation, and in a matter of minutes thousands of barrels flowed into the river before they were able to turn off the flow.

I wonder if this was literally under your house as you raise your children if you wouldn't consider the reality differently.

RI Mom,

Turn off all your electricity, walk everywhere, walk your kids to school and back every day. That is what you are asking for.

I would love to see a world without requiring fuels, but until we HAVE something to replace it, things like pipelines are going to be necessary.

Of course we could power it all with a few nuggets of uranium, wouldn't that be cute!

There are many other ways to bring jobs to the country than this absurd proposal. Isn't it odd that a huge pipeline can be built but not a high speed train system for transport? Or, since North Dakota is opening oil fields, why not divert to that location for refining? As for private business, umm, haven't you heard of the government subsidies for oil production?

Hopie....are you sober ? There is a big difference and no connection between a low tech pipeline and a high tech transport system. I'm not against the transport, but how are you connecting the two, talk about apples and watermelons ! Now you want to divert Canadian oil to North Dakota ? And exactly how many new refineries ( or old refineries) are there in North Dakota ?

we can create $75,000 jobs with construction jobs rebuilding our infrastructure!

Hopie

Our government profits very nicely from the subsidies that it grants for oil production, umm, haven't you heard of federal, state, county, and city gas taxes, income taxes from employees who work in the oil industry, property taxes from service station locations, etc... And this country doesn't need high speed rail, that would cut into the taxes we get from the airline industry, oh wait, don't airplanes use fuel too? There go more taxes collected.

Thom - you're right but we would use only union workers. So we would pay $75,000 and get $25,000 worth of work. And have to pay over 85% of their retirement or they might strike.

Hopie is correct. There is no reason to not build up North Dakota with this oil boom and put in refineries and then ship oil products by rail all over America. This whole thing of running a pipeline from Canada to Houston is ridiculous. They can't stop from spilling in the Yellowstone river when they were warned in advance. They didn't care in the Gulf to work to existing safety standards. And now you people honestly believe the oil companies will somehow, out of nowhere, when they never have, divide this country with a pipeline and act responsibly right down the line. What drugs are you people on?

BTW I'm a gun toting conservative. This is just WRONG.

I wouldn't! There is a difference between me and greed, lust for power and control!

JH, the government would profit from giving me $2 Billion too. Think of the income tax, the sales tax when I go on a spending spree. The jobs I give to people catering to my every whim.

Still it doesn't mean that the government should give me $2 Billion.

And the government shouldn't be giving the oil companies Billions of dollars in subsidies either.

JH is right, sort of. The jobs WILL go to union workers. Good union workers are well trained and very productive.

But that's just it. You and me won't get the jobs, becasue the unions are NOT going to let you in.

MM, what diversion, the pipeline is going right by the Dakotas on its way to Texas. Why don't you check out the maps of the proposed route through the fragile Sand Hills of Nebraska and the Ogallala Aquifer.

Odds are that this monstrosity will be build. Why they can't build it alongside the existing Keystone pipeline that runs down eastern Nebraska is a question TransCanada refuses to even acknowledge (apparently it will cost millions of dollars and years to study putting a pipeline in the same place). They cannot say how they can promise or guarantee how any of this nasty bitumen will never leak (it's not oil they'll be pumping, it's heated tar sands, mixed with chemicals to make them flow). Nor have their supporters said how they're so sure that any of this oil is going to wind up in any of our gas tanks or products since oil is a commodity and goes to the highest bidder.

Nonetheless, TransCanada tells us this will be the safest pipeline ever - well except for that they keep finding new safety features they can add when Nebraskans have put up a fight. And they swear they can clean up any spill quickly - except for the fact that the clean-up crews are going to be in Omaha. Measure that out. It's four hours from the Sand Hills. Four hours of that poisonous stuff pumping into the largest aquifer in the US. And for what? Temporary jobs that may go to Canadians? (their last pipeline left very few jobs behind for Americans) and no guarantees that we actually get any benefit. Doesn't seem like the win-win their never-ending commercials keep spouting.

I think too many people look at the Alaskan Pipeline and think disater. But newer technologies make this venture safe and profitable.

Yes- the Yellowstone pipeline broke- but it was a 1 in a million scenario that caused it. I live pretty close to that area- so I know of what I speak. The rivers this year in Montana- yes all of them- were swollen beyond what anyone saw could happen. The pipeline was under ground- under the river. There was no way to repair the damage when the water was that high. The best option was to wait it out and see if they could do it after the water went down. Time ran out.

Nothing will ever be 100% fail proof- but we're getting close.

The rails are low tech.

@Hopie -- You have it exactly right. It would be far, far cheaper to build new refining capacity in North Dakota than pipe the oil to Oklahoma and Texas. It would be better for the environment, too. Oil transportation causes much more widespread environmental degradation than extraction or refining.

Keystone is not about producing more oil. Keystone is a subsidy for the southern states. Gulf oil extraction is no longer competitive with extraction elsewhere in the country.

geekfish

I think too many people look at the Alaskan Pipeline and think disater. But newer technologies make this venture safe and profitable.

Yes- the Yellowstone pipeline broke- but it was a 1 in a million scenario that caused it. I live pretty close to that area- so I know of what I speak. The rivers this year in Montana- yes all of them- were swollen beyond what anyone saw could happen. The pipeline was under ground- under the river. There was no way to repair the damage when the water was that high. The best option was to wait it out and see if they could do it after the water went down. Time ran out.

Nothing will ever be 100% fail proof- but we're getting close.

I live 10 minutes from a dam. That doesn't qualify me as a hydroelectric engineer.

The pipeline is a bad idea. Even if it had a 99% chance of never failing, that's 1% too short.

Hopie

Isn't it strange that the Pipeline is not being built with Gov't money??? And will cost much less then the 32 errr 48 errr 64 errr 98 Billion that the NEW Ca. High Speed Train will cost.

I never said I was a pipeline expert. I said I know the fact surrounding the incident- that part was obvious- not sure where you got off track.

I feel confident that the pipeline will be successful if given a chance. But they will have to follow some VERY strict guidelines with the installation of the line. But if they do- it will be fine.

There is always some risk in everything we do every day. If we took the attitude that there may be a 1% chance of failure- nothing would EVER get accomplished!

Wouldn't designing & building a new extraction plant on the site of the Tar Sands be an economic stimulant?

Ohhh , I see --- it's about profit.

Thanks Hopie and and Nerm with your posts I figured out what's going on.

Burlington Northern Santa Fe is the only rail road that runs up North down to Texas. And who owns Burlington Northern Santa Fe? That's right...Warren Buffet.

The Koch brothers would rather risk the health of the millions of people than ship on a Buffet enterprise....WE after all are expendable.

The TITANS are warring.........Hope Buffet wins!!

In case Obama hasn't connected the dots already...would someone PLEASE clue him in.

Remember:

Stansbury's analysis, which looked at federal data on the incidence of spills on similar pipelines, said the duct would likely average 91 major spills of over 50 barrels, including 12 spills from holes greater than 10 inches over its 50-year lifetime. TransCanada has estimated the line would have major spills about 11 times.

This is a Koch brother project.
"what do you think now"

No lie zone!!!

It will have almost no effect on oil indepence. And the jobs don't justify the environmental risk.

What oil independence, Robert? Oil is a commodity and will be sold to whomever wants to buy it. There is no guarantee TransCanada won't sell their product to China or Japan or Germany.

It will have almost no effect on oil indepence. And the jobs don't justify the environmental risk.

Indeed; they'll happily just ship in foreign workers and count them when the labor departments ask how many local jobs got "created".

That said, we don't need independence for oil--what use is cheaper oil when its fumes won't let us breathe in a few decades, if it doesn't kill us through our water first? No, we need independence from oil. We need to strengthen our solar and wind efficency, and keep any innovations there far from the oil guys and their patent lawyers. They only hope for two clean-energy jobs: Efficiency Suppressor and Price-Hiking Middleman.

What oil independence, Robert? Oil is a commodity and will be sold to whomever wants to buy it. There is no guarantee TransCanada won't sell their product to China or Japan or Germany.

Good point, and if they do use the pipe to ship US or Canadian oil overseas then we have both robbery and an environmental threat! Isn't it fun to lead an petroleum group?

game kid, I'm amazed more people haven't figured that point out. They keep saying "this oil will make us free" but there's no guarantee we'll see any of it other than gurgling through my backyard.

And how is this "oil independence" when the oil is being imported from Canada?

You DO realize Canada is a country, and not part of the US. Don't you?

It might not be oil independence, but it leads to oil security, since Canada isn't trying to blow us up.

You don't know how the oil market works. This will not make for oil independence. All oil is put into a pool and sold from the pool, even the oil drilled in the USA and Saudi. There is no separate USA oil market. They sell it for the highest price they can get anywhere in the world. This is worthless for energy independence.

Why are we not talking about green energy? Ohhhh yeah....the Koch's don't own THAT.

More likely it was Exxon Mobil or BP !

Did you mean RNC?

its the republicans who get bought! not liberals!

Drudge - I'll bet Obama loaned them his Canadian bus for transportation. Is it electric?

Thom - How did they get enough Senate votes for the healthcare bill? How soon some forget.

Thom.. Really?? Both parties are of the rich and for the rich.. That 1% is made of people like Pelosi and Reid don't be fooled by the we support you bs! Both are highly paid by corporate lobby groups and both who will work together at the same corporation who hires them after they retire from washington.

Yup! Just like our governor who said that most of the 175,000 protesters at the Capitol were bused in from out of state. What fools we mortals be and Walker is sure not immortal!

Scar-414733....and the 1700's were not such great times for the whales either !

Certain countries in the 2000's still give them a bad day.:-)

I'm all for logical mix for power. Just pointing out some people find something wrong with every power source, without supplying a reasonable alternative.

we can technologically wean ourselves from foreign oil!

Yes, it has been working so well the past few years, hasn't it Thom?

We can do it but we can't do it overnight. It will take at least one hundred years.

You forgot Solar. They objected to that because of desert turtles.

Your right Thorn. But every time a new tech is introduced, a so called environmentalist declares we are at war with the earth. Example? CTF bulbs replacing incandescent bulbs. The tiny mercury content had people screaming the earth's death.

Lets see 12-14 watts vs 60 watts ? 7-9 watts vs 40 watts? LCD will be better. But why the fight over affordable power use reduction??

How right you are. However, these same nut jobs would also be against burning candles for light and burning firewood for heat and cooking because the smoke would pollute the air.

Scar, seriously, WTF!? The Tea Party (and Michele Bachman's BS legislation attempt) made the big stink about the light bulbs and tried to create all that mercury hysteria. Most environmentalists are in favor of new technologies that reduce our carbon footprint...you know, 'cause they're environmentalists. Ridiculous assertion, fella.

The mercury thing is particularly funny, considering that the teabaggers apparently think it's dangerous to have mercury in light bulbs... Yet the same Koch Industries that signs their handlers' paychecks also pays to put out adds claiming that eating fish tainted with mercury is no big deal.

Great post Scar. I am all for environmental protection, but to maintain our current level of living we're going to have to pick some winners and losers. Going back to 1700's era carbon footprints would require a massive culling of human race. Granted it'd seem that some of these enviro-types would be fine with that. Really, I think that wind is good option, but seriously, if it's not birds and insects it's noise and appearance. LED lighting, fuel sipping cars, and heat pumps are all great steps for protecting the environment, but there are 7+ billion people on the planet. It's going to take something to power a modern world with that many people. If there is someone out there sitting on an energy source that actually has zero impact they should roll it out, as they'd make a fortune, but right now I agree that it's about managing and spreading the damage by having a good mix, as it's not really possible to have no impact whatsoever.

On a side note I'm all electric with a heat pump and 90% LED lighting in climate zone 5 and my budget billing is $200 a month. When I had propane heat it was about $2500 a year + $120 a month electric. Glad to be done with the propane. I'm planning to put up a turbine this spring to try to push my bill down closer to $100 a month. I guess that's another good reason to conserve.

Nice post, Scar. The most unfortunate thing about our political system is that morons have just as much right to vote as you and I. A pipeline is a GOOD idea. Let's at least TRY to become independent from mideast oil. Build it!

Most environmentalists are well off or being payed off to do their thing and this is a big part of this countries problem when it comes to discovering the recourse'swe need here in this country=====along with the democrats for they MOSTLY go hand in hand====they are the cause of a lot of our grief and problems that plague us all.

Hey Scar--not all environmentalists think the same way about these issues--just keep that in mind. Most that I know are in favor of solar, wind & hydro, because the sources are ongoing & renewable and the impact on the Earth is far less than the "dirty" alternatives. Not to mention we wouldn't be as enmeshed in the politics of the Middle East if we were producing our own energy through cleaner means & so on.

Keystone is not a good idea.

You are all ignorant of a few facts:

1. This oil is not meant for the US. It will be refined in the US and shipped overseas.

2. This pipeline will not create jobs. The Washington Post helped blow the cover on this lie by Keystone. It will create at most 6,000 very temporary jobs.

3. Keystone I, said by the company to be good enough to only spill once a decade, has already spilled 12 times in the past year. Many of these were initially covered up, and then exposed.

4. Tar sand oil is to be delivered to Texas, which is already not doing well on water. Because of the intensive process of processing this oil, it takes over 5 gallons of water to be used and contaminated for every 1 gallon of oil.

5. Tar sands oil is the dirtiest process of extracting oil on the planet. NASA scientists claim that by doing so, it is game over for the environment.

6. A single spill along this pipeline, which runs through water sources that provide water to millions of people and thousands of farms, would ruin the water supply of mass areas of the US farmbelt.

Still like the idea of it?

Chernobyl,

Very cunning name, but do you have a more cunning and workable solution to the problem of exploding global energy demand? I don't imagine a farmer in China gives a rats backside about all the concerns you bring up. I'm not sure that a trans-american pipeline is the best solution, but it may be a piece of the puzzle. To respond to your first point, it doesn't matter where the oil is sold, we live in a global market place. I would hope that most people at this point wouldn't argue that oil is the best answer, but I think right now it's the only answer. We should absolutely aggressively pursue new technologies, but there is nothing that is currently ready to step into oil's place as the driving energy in our world. Crying about how the big-three sat on hydrogen technology for 40 years, or how Reagan took the solar panels off the White House isn't going to fix the problems we have now. We still need a functioning world, so we have to work within the corner in which our forebearers painted us. I guess the short answer to your last question is: No, but I like it a lot better than further crippling the world-wide economy as energy becomes more and more scarce.

we can technologically wean ourselves from foreign oil!

Yeah, by buying oil from another country!

You people are complete idiots. This oil is coming from Canada--it's imported.

You really don't realize this do you?

Well there you go. The less than bright among us somehow think allowing Canada and Houston oil to run CANADIAN oil across the entire country so Houston Oil can sell it to the highest bidder (which of course just happens to be China) and somehow this is going to make us less dependent on "foreign oil". I repeat. For the hearing impaired. CANADA IS A FOREIGN COUNTRY. DUH!!!!!

The pipeline will be built, inspected, monitored and maintained here. Therefore, there will be American jobs.

It is still foreign oil,dummy, only from Canada.

The new Beavis-n-ButtHead esipode showed some middle eastern guy named Hassan calling Tech Support on his failing computer within a nuclear power plant that is ready to blow. And Beavis & ButtHead were working PC Tech Support.

Some catastrophic idiotic disaster will happen from that pipeline fiasco. Mark my words, Beavis.

This project does nothing in either direction. The oil we use will still come from overseas. All it does is put our land at risk, and make the oil guys in Texas more rich.

It takes more energy to extract the oil from the sands than we will get back. While jobs are great, using more energy than what you get in return isn't.

It takes more energy to extract the oil from the sands than we will get back

BINGO: My argument exactly against Ethanol... Same exact thing! It takes more water and energy to make it then it actually produces....

Wrong. The extraction output ratio for oil sands is about 1:5-6. Meaning, for every one unit of energy input to extract and refine, you get between 5-6 units of energy out. It is certainly more energy intensive than just running a pump jack somewhere, but still definitely worth doing because there is a net energy gain.

This pipeline and all fossil fuel investment is going in the wrong direction. We should phase out fossil carbon energy as quickly as possible. We can let the market do this, not losing any money, by slowly moving taxes from work and investment to fossil carbon pollution. Or we can put a rising price on fossil carbon and feed the money back to the economy by giving everyone a monthly Climate Insurance Dividend check.

The same people who say that renewable energy is flimsy, and transition to it is impossible, will be saying that it was inevitable, and that it would have occurred even without any policy changes, after it's already happened, in part because of policy changes.

ChrisMck is wrong! This oil takes more energy to get and REFINE then you get back. Refine being the key word. Sadly in another 100 million years this would be great oil however it is really just tar squeezed out of sand. Ultimately it won't even matter as the Alberta sands are in Canada. Canadians wisely do not trust ANY oil company. Canadian citizens are already in court to block this right now even as we argue about it. Good luck building a pipeline for nothing but hey how about all them jobs?

Excuse me? Since you seem to be an expert on this topic, please point me towards the data that tells you this company is going to sell their oil to the U.S....or did it not occur to you that they have no obligation to do so? I assume you're a 'free enterprise' type of person, in which case why would you care where they sell the oil? It's their company, after all. So please, dispense with the nonsense about this company "benefiting" the U.S. You have no facts to back that conclusion. Oh, and while you're looking up that data, also please tell us what percent of our oil consumption would be impacted if this company sold 100% of this oil to the U.S....taking into account future consumption. I'm waiting....

The word you are looking for is "contract." Wiki it.

And don't give me that "oh, it will only provide x percent of our oil needs." Blah, blah, blah. Nothing will provide for 100% of our oil needs, which is why we get oil from a variety of sources. None alone is decisive, but collectively they become critical. Stopping every oil project that comes along because it would only meet x percent of our needs is equivalent to death by a thousand cuts.

Ummmm Thinkingman you know the US already gets half its oil from Canada which is sold at international prices. IE. the same price Canadians pay.

Thinkingman,

We can politely remind them that the pipeline is running through American soil. It's true that they have a right to sell it to whoever they want, but we also have a right to refuse them from using our land. I'm sure that they know that they need us more than we need them. We can always tell them to f*ck off and build a pipeline in their own country.

Wow some of the ignorant BS from the likes of thc88 etc... is astounding. I actually live and work in Fort McMurray, where the oil sands come from and I'd like to run a few things by you all. We all know that America consumes a lopsided amount of the worlds supply of oil in relation to your population. To put it in his words, if you don't want our oil then DON"T F**KIN BUY IT!!! My next point is that most of the large projects up here cost about 1 - 1.5 billion dollars to build and staff and end up with an output of 100 000 to 150 000 barrales per day of light sweet crude (the largest does about 400 000 bpd). Most of these are open pit mines where shovels and dump trucks dig it up, but then the oil has to be extracted from the sand. Overall Fort McMurray produces about 1.5 million barrels per day with a population of less than 100 000. That output (from just one city) is equivilent to the entire country of Lybia or any number of other small countries. However to build an upgrader that could handle that kind of volume would cost well in excess of 5-7 billion. The PRIVATE companies that run the opperations aren't about to put out that kind of money. They are already making huge profits. The major players are Exxon/Mobil, Suncor, Imperial Oil, Shell, and numerous other smaller domestic and foreign companies. The reason they want to pump all of the oil to the Gulf is because there are already refineries in place. But make no mistake that they are all Privately run companies and they can sell their oil to whoever they want. There are also plans to build a smaller pipeline from Fort McMurray to the west coast which would make it a whole lot easier to sell that oil to China. While I can agree that Oil will not last forever and we should be pushing development of renewable options, for now it's all there is, and I would hope that you would be more willing to support a freindly local ally than dictators in the middle east.

One small point. The environmentalist will not let you build the refineries.

The second point this has no cost to the tax payer none. Matter of fact it will pay taxes easing the tax burden on states it passes through.

"Matter of fact it will pay taxes easing the tax burden on states it passes through."

Where's your reference to this? Let's see proof that states will financially benefit from taxes on the oil passing through.

They will be using property in these states for commercial purposes, requiring the payment of property taxes.

Exactly.... its a gift horse of free trade and NAFTA. Personally I would rather see new refineries built in Canada to employ more Canadians. Thats the thing about oil these days... Everybody needs it and we dont need a new pipe to sell it.

You're still missing a few major points. This oil is not intended for the US. It will be refined here and shipped overseas to the highest bidder. It will not create jobs... the lid was officially blown off this the other day by the Washington Post. 6,000 temporary jobs is the real number. The economics of renewable energy make sense. Even read today's article from Nobel Prize winner, economist, and professor Paul Krugman.

Also, problems are NOT rare. Keystone I has leaked 12 times in the past year. There are even pipeline workers who worked on Keystone I who have turned against the entire project. Look up John Bolenbaugh to see a start to this.

But they are pushing for change so they, and we, are not dependent on oil.

It will run out and we are not ready.

If it breaks, you fix it.

That's why pipeline inspections are routinely done.

All pipelines in the US and Canada are computer monitored and have fail-safes built in.

If a leak occurs, the unit will shut itself down until it's repaired.

Except the same people that love the oil industry are the same people who dismantle the government's ability to properly regulate and inspect anything, even something common sense like drinking water protections

So let's not do anything! There are already pipelines all over the country. I don't hear of them spilling gas and oil all over the place. Even if the refinery is half owned by the Saudi Arabia state oil company, it is in the US and would be refining North American oil which reduces the amount of Mid Eastern oil imported. How would you know what they intend to do with the output of the refined product?

How do you know what they intend to do with the output of the refined product?

I read.

Also the initial Keystone pipeline has already spilled, I believe it was in 2010?

Realist:

Google "pipeline leak."

Of course you haven't heard about. You haven't been paying attention.

Keystone I has leaked 12 times in the past year. Do your homework. Keystone I pipeline employees have even turned against it, calling it a time bomb, as tar sands oil is like sandpaper constantly wearing away at everything.

OWS supports the Tar Sands Action group and contains many of its members.

I think your name should be BS and nothing but the BS. There is no thunder in the Occupy protests because they have no goal. And there is nothing to back your ridiculous claims.

Uh, ok. We'll see at the polls. Republicans that won last time better hope those old people that voted them in are still alive.

Definitely not. The 2 protests are related. OWS is about money having too much power in government. KXL is about a specific instance of that: the trillion-dollar, speculator-driven fossil fuel industry having disproportionate influence in government so that science saying we need to transition away from it is totally ignored!

Four more years of Obama and this is how power will have to be made.

There are no jobs. The Washington Post officially blew the lid on this this week. The actual numbers? 6,000 temporary US jobs at maximum. Do your homework please.

Correct.

Absolutely correct. While the Koch brothers have just about the worst track record for polluting of any major oil barons they are backing both Rick Perry and Herman Cain who want to dissolve ALL government controls over safety and regulation. In other words, those of you who support this are saying you want absolutely no oversight of the Koch Brothers, no regulations and let them build a pipeline clear across north to south of this country and nobody can do a thing about ensuring quality or safety standards. Amazing. Just freakin' amazing. The dumbing down of America marches on.