Obama Backs Fracking to Create 600,000 Jobs, Vows Safe Drilling

Taichiliberal said:
As for exactly whom will the oil be refined for:

http://www.tarsandsaction.org/spread-the-word/key-facts-keystone-xl/

And I was mistaken...it has been "vetted" but not fully approved:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/19/us/state-dept-to-put-oil-pipeline-on-hold.html?_r=1
Click to expand...

I thought going by all the controversy that this was an entirely new pipeline, which is evidently not the case. Surely if there is a problem with routing over an aquifer that could be changed to minimise the environmental impact. I also believe that it will be underground for most if not all of the way. The UK has had various pipelines carrying oil, gas, gasoline and ethylene for many years without any problems. Many of these are on the sea floor connecting the UK to different countries including Norway, Ireland, Belgium as well as all the pipelines from the North Sea and Scottish waters.

united_kingdom_ireland_pipelines.jpg


http://www.theodora.com/pipelines/united_kingdom_and_ireland_pipelines.html

Phase 1

The 3,456 kilometres (2,147 mi) long pipeline runs from Hardisty, Alberta to the United States refineries in Wood River, Illinois and Patoka, Illinois.[SUP][32][/SUP] The Canadian section involves approximately 864 kilometres (537 mi) of pipeline converted from the Canadian Mainline natural gas pipeline and 373 kilometres (232 mi) of new pipeline, pump stations and terminal facilities at Hardisty, Alberta. The United States section is 2,219 kilometres (1,379 mi) long.[SUP][33][/SUP] It runs through Buchanan, Clinton and Caldwell counties in Missouri, and Nemaha, Brown and Doniphan counties in Kansas.[SUP][9][/SUP] Phase 1 went online in June 2010.
Phase 2

From Steele City, Nebraska, the 291 miles (468 km) Keystone-Cushing pipeline was routed through Kansas to the oil hub and tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma in 2010 and went online in February 2011.[SUP][1][/SUP]
Phase 3

This phase, known as Cushing MarketLink, is part of the Keystone XL pipeline. This proposed phase would start from Cushing, Oklahoma where domestic oil would be added to the pipeline, then it would expand 435 miles (700 km) to a delivery point near terminals in Nederland, Texas to serve the Port Arthur, Texas marketplace.[SUP][1][/SUP] Also proposed is an approximate 47 miles (76 km) previous pipeline to transport crude oil from the pipeline in Liberty County, Texas to the Houston, Texas area.[SUP][1][/SUP][SUP][34][/SUP]
Domestic oil producers in the USA are pushing for this phase so the glut of oil can be distributed out of the large oil tank farms and distribution center in Cushing, Oklahoma. On November 16, 2011, Enbridge announced it is buying ConocoPhillips' 50% interest in the Seaway pipeline that flows from the Gulf of Mexico to the Cushing hub. In cooperation with Enterprise Products Partners LP it plans to reverse the Seaway pipeline so that an oversupply of oil at Cushing could reach the Gulf.[SUP][35][/SUP] This project will replace the earlier proposed alternative Wrangler pipeline project from Cushing to the Gulf Coast.[SUP][35][/SUP][SUP][36][/SUP] However, according to industries, the Seaway line alone is not enough for oil transportation to the Gulf Coast.[SUP][37][/SUP]
Phase 4

This phase is part of the Keystone XL pipeline and would start from the same area in Alberta, Canada as the main pipeline.[SUP][10][/SUP] The Canadian section would consist of 529 kilometres (329 mi) of new pipeline.[SUP][12][/SUP] It would enter the United States at Morgan, Montana and travel through Baker, Montana where domestic oil would be added to the pipeline, then it would travel through South Dakota and Nebraska, where it would join the existing Keystone pipelines at Steele City, Nebraska.[SUP][1][/SUP] This phase has generated the greatest controversy because of its routing over the top of the Ogallala Aquifer in Nebraska.[SUP][38][/SUP]
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keystone_Pipeline
 
Last edited:
PostmodernProphet said:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Your right regarding the misuse of the word "objective" on my part....I should have stated "finally" Here's an up-to-date on what the State Dept. has to say. Observe:

Rejecting Pipeline Proposal, Obama Blames Congress
By JOHN M. BRODER and DAN FROSCH
Published: January 18, 2012
The State Department, which has authority over the project because it crosses an international border, said there was not enough time to draw a new route for the pipeline and assess the potential environmental harm to sensitive grasslands and aquifers along its path. The agency recommended that the permit be denied, and Mr. Obama concurred.

“As the State Department made clear last month,” the president said in a statement, “the rushed and arbitrary deadline insisted on by Congressional Republicans prevented a full assessment of the pipeline’s impact, especially the health and safety of the American people, as well as our environment.”



http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/19/us...e-on-hold.html
Click to expand...
might be interesting if the State Department report had actually said that....given that it was completed BEFORE the Congressional Republicans insisted on Obama making a decision within 60 days, its highly unlikely.....
Click to expand...

What's highly unlikely is for YOU to provide ANY valid documentation to back up your assertion here, let alone prove that any the SD quotes from Nov. 2011 in the linked article are false. Until then, I'm not going waste time entertaining your efforts to pass off your suppositions and conjectures as fact.
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
I thought going by all the controversy that this was an entirely new pipeline, which is evidently not the case. Surely if there is a problem with routing over an aquifer that could be changed to minimise the environmental impact. I also believe that it will be underground for most if not all of the way. The UK has had various pipelines carrying oil, gas, gasoline and ethylene for many years without any problems. Many of these are on the sea floor connecting the UK to different countries including Norway, Ireland, Belgium as well as all the pipelines from the North Sea and Scottish waters.

united_kingdom_ireland_pipelines.jpg




http://www.theodora.com/pipelines/united_kingdom_and_ireland_pipelines.html



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keystone_Pipeline
Click to expand...

That's nice....it STILL doesn't change the State Departments reasons or the facts surrounding the debate on environmental impact studies or the fact that this is primarily a refining project for a foreign nation and WILL NOT maintain the majority of the created jobs beyond a 2-5 year period of estimated construction.
 
Taichiliberal said:
That's nice....it STILL doesn't change the State Departments reasons or the facts surrounding the debate on environmental impact studies or the fact that this is primarily a refining project for a foreign nation and WILL NOT maintain the majority of the created jobs beyond a 2-5 year period of estimated construction.
Click to expand...

don't you find it odd that your projections that all this will go to foreign nations etc....is at odds with tom's post?
 
Yurt said:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
That's nice....it STILL doesn't change the State Departments reasons or the facts surrounding the debate on environmental impact studies or the fact that this is primarily a refining project for a foreign nation and WILL NOT maintain the majority of the created jobs beyond a 2-5 year period of estimated construction.
Click to expand...

don't you find it odd that your projections that all this will go to foreign nations etc....is at odds with tom's post?
Click to expand...

You should really READ the material you're commenting on, Yurt. Tommy's post DOES NOT address who is receiving the lion share of the oil, but just details the proposed construction route. If you can prove otherwise with FACTS, then please do so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top