The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

the portion of the keystone pipeline that runs through Oklahoma was already built and operating, thanks to the Canadian company exercising Eminent Domain rights in our state.

The Questionable Economics of the Keystone XL Pipeline
http://mobile.businessweek.com/top-news/the-questionable-economics-of-the-keystone-xl-pipeline-02172012.html?section=highlights
The Lazarus of political dramas known as Keystone XL gained new life yet again this week as Senate Republicans introduced an amendment to force approval of a $7 billion, 1,750-mile, Alberta-to-Texas oil pipeline, and environmentalists generated 800,000 letters to the Senate in two days opposing it.
A quick review: In November, President Obama sent TransCanada, the Calgary-based oil services company that planned to build the pipeline, back to the drawing board when he rejected the proposed route through Nebraska, where the pipe would lie inches above an aquifer that sustains the Great Plains. Then in December, Republicans in Congress required the President to make a final decision within 30 days so they could portray him as a job-killer; he obliged, denying the permit in January. This week’s Senate amendment and its corollary in the House—a measure tied to offshore drilling in the Atlantic Ocean that passed with a vote of 237-187 on Feb. 17—are attempts to override the President’s ruling.
As skilled as opponents were in defeating the pipeline, which seemed a sure thing as recently as September, pro-pipeline commentators and their allies in Congress have proven equally adept at making the case for it. The pipeline’s champions argue it will create jobs, slash domestic gas prices, and reduce dependence on oil from the Middle East.
Just how realistic are these claims?
Clearly, the construction of the pipe, most of it below ground, will be a huge undertaking. The estimated number of people it will employ in the process, however, has fluctuated wildly, with TransCanada raising the number from 3,500, to 4,200, to 20,000 temporary positions and suggesting the line will employ several hundred on an on-going basis. The U.S. State Department, which made its own assessment because the pipeline crosses the U.S.-Canada border, estimates the line will create just 20 permanent jobs. One advantage of a pipeline, after all, is that it’s automated.
The gas price argument rests on the bump in supply the Keystone XL will bring to market. Keystone XL would deliver around 830,000 barrels a day. Not all of that would be used in the U.S., however: The pipeline delivers to a tariff-free zone, so there’s a financial incentive to export at least some of this oil. This is especially true because area refineries are primed to produce diesel, for which there’s less stateside demand. But let’s say two-thirds of the capacity—half a million barrels a day—of Keystone oil stays in the U.S. That’s a convenient estimate on which to gauge the impact of Keystone oil, because it’s the supply increase the U.S. Energy Information Administration, which provides independent data on energy markets, expected in a recent study of the expiration of offshore drilling bans. In 2008, it studied what 500,000 barrels more per day would save consumers at the pump: 3¢ a gallon.
The point is not that the Keystone XL won’t deliver on the economic claims made for it, but that it’s highly probable the gains will be modest for consumers, while carrying significant financial risks, as we previously explored.
Meanwhile, those opposed to the pipeline—including environmental groups that sent all those e-mails to Congress—might want to put their energies instead into passing fuel economy legislation. The mileage upgrade for cars and trucks that Obama proposed last July would displace 11.6 percent of current consumption by 2025. (This upgrade is already technically feasible.) After 2025, the new fuel economy standards could well reduce consumption by 4 million barrels a day—nearly five times the capacity of the Keystone XL—and more than we get from OPEC.

The guarantee is that there will be no leaks

If they actually said that, the company should just be liquidated. They would have to be the stupidest people ever to walk this Earth to believe that it's possible to build a leak-proof pipeline with current technology. Even well regarded pipeline companies that don't skimp on maintenance in the slightest end up with leaks every once in a while, even without things like earthquakes and other natural disasters.

In Oklahoma last year there were 51 pipeline spills that released 5 gallons or more of hazardous material, causing almost $10 million in damage.

Seriously? I'd heard there have been leaks, but didn't realize it was on that grand of a scale.

I guess I should clarify in saying that the promotors of the pipeline are guaranteeing no leaks. As far as the company itself, I shouldn't have said that because I don't know if they'd make that kind of a guarantee.

I looked it up on wikipedia and it sounds like there could be a huge amount of pipelines running through our country once the project is finished. It's probably not a good thing, but since Iran has gotten crabby and oil is starting to skyrocket, we may end up having to go along with the pipelines.

The reason the pipeline goes all the way to the gulf coast is so they can sell the refined product overseas. If America was going to get the product, the pipeline would go as far as a midwest refinery.

I don't understand why we want this. A Canadian company wants to build a pipeline across America so it can sell gasoline to Asia. All we get are the assembly jobs and the risk of a spill.

If that were a completely accurate assessment then why not pipe it to the west coast?

If that were a completely accurate assessment then why not pipe it to the west coast?

California, Oregon, and Washington are not petroleum friendly.

Seriously? I'd heard there have been leaks, but didn't realize it was on that grand of a scale.

The reason the pipeline goes all the way to the gulf coast is so they can sell the refined product overseas. If America was going to get the product, the pipeline would go as far as a midwest refinery.

I don't understand why we want this. A Canadian company wants to build a pipeline across America so it can sell gasoline to Asia. All we get are the assembly jobs and the risk of a spill.

The reason the pipeline goes all the way to the gulf coast is so they can sell the refined product overseas. If America was going to get the product, the pipeline would go as far as a midwest refinery.

I don't understand why we want this. A Canadian company wants to build a pipeline across America so it can sell gasoline to Asia. All we get are the assembly jobs and the risk of a spill.

No lie. Across the entire country, there were 603 pipeline leaks last year, resulting in 17 fatalities, 70 injuries, almost $326 million in damage, and the net release of 114,195 barrels of hazardous liquids. (around 25,000 barrels were cleaned up after spills)

http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/comm/reports/safety/AllPSI.html

I would like to see DOT put some new regulations in place - poison to many - that would require pipeline operators to do timely inspections and maintenance and replacement of old pipes.  In addition to the $326 million nathanm mentioned, there has to be some cost associated with the 17 deaths and the 70 injuries above and beyond that.  The old "value of human life" discussion...

Isn't that how TD Williamson makes a lot, if not all, their money, doing timely inspections on pipelines with their pigs?

Think of how many died or were injured by tanker trucks and train derailments as well.  Moving hazardous materials is a, well, hazardous business.

Bill to expedite approval for the Keystone pipeline failed again yesterday but the margins were slimmer coming short by only 4 votes to pass.

I think this effort is pointless until after the election.  The president is not going to sign the STOCK Act, he's not going to take any actions that might be deemed as bold, controversial, or involve any degree of leadership until after he is re-elected.  Heck, he's willing to give perhaps billions of dollars to Isreal in the form of planes, bombs and technology if they will just promise to wait until after the election to smoke Iran.

This president is the whole package. . .99% politician, 1% leader.

LOL!  According to MSNBC the actual pipeline was defeated!

In the early summer of 2008, when the average price of a gallon of gas in the U.S. topped $4, a wide variety of Fox News figures were quick to push a simple message: don't blame the Bush/Cheney administration.

Indeed, Fox News was rather explicit on the issue, telling its viewers, "[N]o president has the power to increase or to lower gas prices."

For the record, I think Fox News was entirely right -- at the time. Though the network has shifted gears, and has somehow reached the conclusion that President Obama can singlehandedly affect gas prices, Fox News' 2008 position was the correct one.

I'd just add, as an aside, that long-time readers may recall that I gave Bush/Cheney some grief about this at the time, but the details and context matter. I never said the Republican White House had the power to lower gas prices, but I did argue that Bush was wrong to promise, as a candidate, that he could reduce the cost of gas by "jawboning" countries in the Middle East.

My beef was with candidate Bush making promises in 2000 he knew he couldn't keep, not President Bush's inability to snap his fingers and lower prices

You ever get dizzy in the spin zone?

You piqued my interest. Here are just some reasons why Obama made some calls about the pipeline. I'm sure you know there were good reasons and just neglected to tell the whole story.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/09/senate-rejects-gop-proposals_n_1334409.html

Boehner and friends were wanting to "fastrack" the legislation by ignoring environmental problems that the administration has had and decided to change lots of other stuff in the transportation bill like eliminating mass transit funding. But you missed all that cause Fox and Friends neglected to mention it?

Wow, Gassy, you want to talk politics?  Fast tracking anything of this nature -- ie with the potential to be a major environmental hazard -- is ridiculous.  Do the due diligence.  It's important.  The Republicans would be up in arms if we tried to force a private business to make a decision on the fast track.  Not just because it would be meddling, because being prudent about risk is not only smart business, it's essential business.  So:  look at this period as the business of government deciding how and when to go forward with a risky venture. 

Or would you rather the government -- who is essentially selling our nation's resources to a multinational out of Canada -- just throw it at them without a second thought?

ruh roh..now you've done it.  Common sense.

because being prudent about risk is not only smart business, it's essential business

Obama's thrown his support behind the southern leg of the pipeline from Cushing to the Gulf.

I'm interested to see the enormous rush of new jobs for Oklahoma this will provide.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/21/usa-keystone-obama-idUSL1E8QL0G320120321 (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/21/usa-keystone-obama-idUSL1E8QL0G320120321)

As coincidental that no state leaders were on hand to meet the leader of the free world at the world crossroads of pipelines. Yet, they managed to sling some political trash on the local airwaves. Way to represent our state Fallin. Just don't answer the phone eh?

My guess is that the pipelines are going to be operational after all the political crap dissipates. In the meantime inferences will be made.

OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) — No state officials will be on hand to greet President Barack Obama when he arrives in Oklahoma on Wednesday.

Officials representing Gov. Mary Fallin and Lt. Gov. Todd Lamb confirmed Wednesday that both Republicans were out of state and would not be available to greet the president.


Next in line as acting governor is Senate President Pro Tem Brian Bingman, and a spokesman for Bingman says his office hasn’t been contacted by White House officials.

Tinker Air Force Base officials say several military leaders and two local mayors will be on hand to greet the president when Air Force One arrives about 9:30 p.m. Wednesday.

Fallin’s Commerce Secretary Dave Lopez plans to visit with Obama when he travels to the Cushing area Thursday to discuss domestic energy

Fallin spokesman Alex Weintz said the governor wasn’t contacted about the president’s visit until Sunday. The trip was announced to the media last Friday.

“The president’s office didn’t ask to have anyone from our office greet him,” Weintz said. “The president’s office invited the governor to participate in the event in Cushing, and since the governor is out of town, we’re sending Secretary (of Commerce Dave) Lopez.”

Lamb is at a conference in Washington, D.C. Next in line as acting governor is Senate President Pro Tem Brian Bingman, and a spokesman for Bingman said his office hadn’t been contacted by White House officials. The lone Democrat in Oklahoma’s congressional delegation — U.S. Rep. Dan Boren of Muskogee — was in Washington and didn’t plan to meet with the president.

As coincidental that no state leaders were on hand to meet the leader of the free world at the world crossroads of pipelines. Yet, they managed to sling some political trash on the local airwaves. Way to represent our state Fallin. Just don't answer the phone eh?

Conan, yeah, whatever. We had prior commitments is bs. We're talking an opportunity to go face to face with someone pretty important and in regards to our basic industry here and no one in our outspoken conservative leadership stepped up for us. Just what was that prior committment anyway? No one bothered to ask. I particularly like that "He didn't ask us to greet him". We should have asked to greet him. Anyway, after his governors greeting in AZ maybe he didn't care to meet another southern radical state governor.

You made an inference about Buffet and the XL pipeline. I simply made an inference about the presidents visit and nobody showing up to engage him. Both about equal.

Try reading the articles I posted instead of running with your partisan theories.  Lamb was already scheduled for a conference in DC and Fallin is on a family vacation in Puerto Rico.  I suppose she was expected to pre-empt that at the last minute to accommodate the President’s campaign stop?  They did arrange for her commerce secretary to meet with him in Cushing.  The next ranking Republican was not invited by the White House advance people to meet with the President.  It’s not as simple as showing up for an audience with the president because you are a political leader.

Try reading the articles I posted instead of running with your partisan theories.  Lamb was already scheduled for a conference in DC and Fallin is on a family vacation in Puerto Rico.  I suppose she was expected to pre-empt that at the last minute to accommodate the President’s campaign stop?  They did arrange for her commerce secretary to meet with him in Cushing.  The next ranking Republican was not invited by the White House advance people to meet with the President.  It’s not as simple as showing up for an audience with the president because you are a political leader.

Fallin is on a family vacation in Puerto Rico.

Isn't it? Arizona's governor managed to come face to face on the tarmac. She used her opportunity. Fallin's personal vacation is of no interest to her constituency. She represents us 24/7/365. What would you do if you were on vacation and word came to you that your employer was about to unveil something of great interest to your employment? Would you wait for him to invite you back? She gets no excuses, especially since she found time to release an accusatory (anything but welcoming) press release on her vacation time.

That's because Brewer spends more time in the state trying to take care of state issues and she doesn't believe in kissng anyones donkey.

Yeah, like taking care of worrying about illegal immigrants when her prison department is letting dangerous criminals escape so they can butcher Oklahomans on vacation.

McCluskey, Province and Daniel Renwick, 37, took advantage of broken alarms and lapses in security at the private-contract state prison at Kingman, operated by Management and Training Corp., to cut their way to freedom on July 30, 2010, using tools that Welch tossed over the fence.

That was a private prison not a state prison.
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2012/01/20/20120120plea-changes-expected-deadly-arizona-prison-escape.html (http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2012/01/20/20120120plea-changes-expected-deadly-arizona-prison-escape.html)

And if you want a good understanding about the problem of illegals, go live there and you will have a better understanding.

Fallin et al behaved rudely.  It was a snub, pure and simple, and meant to be taken as such.  But I actually reserve most of my disgust for Bingman, who doesn't get to say "well heck, nobody told ME about it!"  Even if the President's advance team didn't contact him (which I find unlikely to the point of impossibility), it's his duty as the highest level elected official in the state to greet the goshdamn president, whoever he is and whatever the situation.  And if, for some reason he wasn't contacted, it still behooves him to roust himself from whatever nest he's built for himself in Sapulpa and meet the plane anyway. 

We're still in Cushing, where President Obama just spoke about his support for American energy production. We'll post our story this afternoon, but, in the meantime, here's a fun anecdote:

Following the president's speech, Barbara Schoenkopf, a writer with the Potawatomi tribal newspaper, the HowNiKan, who grew up in Hawaii, told Obama, "I was born in the same hospital you were!" The president broke into a wide smile and replied: "Do you have your birth certificate?"

This Land Press FB post:

That's funny. Obama does have a good sense of humor and timing. As for the "snub", just laughing my aox off over this contrived outrage over a president not getting the respect he deserves. Has W been gone that long?

Sad that there is, by that definition, no state oversight of private prisons.


No thanks, we got plenty here...

Think there's anger because W was given so much more respect than he deserved?

Nope. Perhaps some here want Obama getting more respect than he deserves. Or, maybe its the ol' double standard at work here since those that are now b!tching weren't exactly W cheerleaders, were they?

Can it be a double standard when the deserved respect is not a level field?

None of this crap matters. And that's what it is--crap. Sheesh, the lengths folks go to justify inconsistent "bad behavior" or political snubbing gets real close to just embarrassing. I am also getting real close to blaming W over Mary Fallin's apparent decision not to pack up her family in PR and fly back to greet Obama on his FIRST visit to Oklahoma since becoming president. And how often did he even campaign here after he was nominated? I wish we could all just get back to the real reason Obama got snubbed, that is we Okies are racist. It's simpler.  

I wish we could all just get back to the real reason Obama got snubbed, that is we Okies are racist. It's simpler. 

Good point.

It permeates everything and makes it difficult to attract the educated to our State.

Fallin et al behaved rudely.  It was a snub, pure and simple, and meant to be taken as such.  But I actually reserve most of my disgust for Bingman, who doesn't get to say "well heck, nobody told ME about it!"  Even if the President's advance team didn't contact him (which I find unlikely to the point of impossibility), it's his duty as the highest level elected official in the state to greet the goshdamn president, whoever he is and whatever the situation.  And if, for some reason he wasn't contacted, it still behooves him to roust himself from whatever nest he's built for himself in Sapulpa and meet the plane anyway.  Heck, when was the last time the President visited Oklahoma?  You'd think this would be a big deal.

And really . . . please come up with a reportable instance of the top three reps of any state government snubbing Bush on a given high-profile speechifying trip.  It's not enough to deploy the "Dems do it to" canard here without some proof.  Of which I'll bet 10$ that there is none.

Sorry, this pissed me off.  It seemed like a needless insult, and one which doesn't represent me as a taxpayer of this fine, fine state.  

We keep our heads down and apologize to our friends and family elsewhere.

Yes. My Peeps ask me when I plan to cut out...even Conan has inquired. But I find serenity surrounded by chaos (thank you Bear :o).

OKLAHOMA CITY - Oklahoma lawmakers had a lot to say after the President's speech in Cushing today.

Oklahoma Senator Jim Inhofe says President Obama's push for the pipeline project is all politics.

"He has opposed the pipeline, he's opposed drilling, he's opposed fossil fuels, and this is his effort to minimize that as a negative in his re-election campaign."

Meantime, Governor Mary Fallin is also criticizing President Obama's speech.

She says "In this case the president's 'support' means that he will not actively use the federal bureaucracy to sabotage this project as he has so many others. This kind of intermittent 'support' for the industry is not good enough."

Seriously, I'm crossing off states on a map to see which ones are left that I could move to comfortably when my kid hits college. I'm looking at politics and livability factors as well as where the country is going to split when the earthquake hits, the inland seas form and the oceans start to rise.  ;) I got boats. The Santorum states are a pretty good indicator of where I cannot move.

The losers so far, besides OK, are Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee, North Carolina, Arizona, Colorado, Utah, Wisconsin, Kansas.

Seriously, I'm crossing off states on a map to see which ones are left that I could move to comfortably when my kid hits college. I'm looking at politics and livability factors as well as where the country is going to split when the earthquake hits, the inland seas form and the oceans start to rise.  ;) I got boats. The Santorum states are a pretty good indicator of where I cannot move.

The losers so far, besides OK, are Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee, North Carolina, Arizona, Colorado, Utah, Wisconsin, Kansas.

Seriously, I'm crossing off states on a map to see which ones are left that I could move to comfortably when my kid hits college. I'm looking at politics and livability factors as well as where the country is going to split when the earthquake hits, the inland seas form and the oceans start to rise.  ;) I got boats. The Santorum states are a pretty good indicator of where I cannot move.

The losers so far, besides OK, are Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee, North Carolina, Arizona, Colorado, Utah, Wisconsin, Kansas.

Washington and Oregon will change in character as the sea levels rise. Besides, they don't want any new residents.

I used to love Colorado and have spent some vacations in the NM, CO area, but the people are pretty redneck when you get past the metro areas.  Aurora is weird, Colorado Springs and Golden are quite nice but too touristy. You'll do well there. You and Conan can live up in the mountains, ride bikes, shoot guns, spit tobaccy and fit right in.

CA would be a possibility but that's a huge culture change at this time of life. The others are too cold. If I considered them I might as well do Canada in summers and Texas in winters.

Seriously, I'm crossing off states on a map to see which ones are left that I could move to comfortably when my kid hits college. I'm looking at politics and livability factors as well as where the country is going to split when the earthquake hits, the inland seas form and the oceans start to rise.  ;) I got boats. The Santorum states are a pretty good indicator of where I cannot move.

The losers so far, besides OK, are Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee, North Carolina, Arizona, Colorado, Utah, Wisconsin, Kansas.

Fallin et al behaved rudely.  It was a snub, pure and simple, and meant to be taken as such.

You’re looking at states?  I’m looking at countries.  ;)

The flatlands of Colorado may be over run with red necks, not sure.  That’s not the norm in Pagosa Springs, Leadville, Durango, Gunnison or other places I’d consider living in Colorado.  Too much wealthy dreck in places like Vail, Aspen, Telluride, or Breckinridge these days.  I don’t know if they allow red necks permanent residence in New Mexico.

I like the idea of an island country as well (not Australia though, too many deadly creatures).

I like the idea of an island country as well (not Australia though, too many deadly creatures). Funny how your tastes change over time. I remember being real impressed with Dallas at one time.

You’re looking at states?  I’m looking at countries.  ;)

The flatlands of Colorado may be over run with red necks, not sure.  That’s not the norm in Pagosa Springs, Leadville, Durango, Gunnison or other places I’d consider living in Colorado.  Too much wealthy dreck in places like Vail, Aspen, Telluride, or Breckinridge these days.  I don’t know if they allow red necks permanent residence in New Mexico.

The flatlands of Colorado may be over run with red necks, not sure. 

That’s not the norm in Pagosa Springs, Leadville, Durango

Yes, that is the case, at least in southeast Colorado. You could plop La Junta down anywhere in the south and it wouldn't change a bit aside from the altitude. I guess the "real" southerners would think they talked funny, though. (Kinda like Okies ;)) There's a place with some delicious chili in the little town just west of there, though.

That is also the impression I got.

Rocky Ford?  Chili or Chile?  Big difference in southern Colorado and New Mexico ;)

I had some beef guisado at Elote last night that could have come from any number of places in that region.  Very authentic spin on a chile.

Oh and for a proper TNF Segue: I washed it down with Marshall’s Revival Red.

Swink, before you get to Rocky Ford (heading west). I want to say it's on Columbia, next to the post office. It's a while since I've been out that way, though, as my client sold off the La Junta operation several years ago. There's a pretty decent place with "fancy" decor straight out of the late 19th century in Rocky Ford, though. Looking at the googs, I think it's El Capitan Dining Room. You can also get some pretty decent Mexican food in La Junta itself.

Telluride has a redneck checkpoint to keep out the undesireables, the Delores Brewing Company in Delores. If you don't stop and sample the microbrews you are deemed unworthy to continue onto Telluride.

Now I'm just wondering....Am I a redneck?

Ok, Colorado makes it back on the list. At least the mountain areas not the flat lands.

You made me think though. I just bought a second hand 16 ft flats boat called a Gheenoe. Its part canoe, part regular boat with a square tail to hold a small outboard motor or electric trolling motor. Supposed to be a very stable fishing platform for small lakes and rivers and a practically unsinkable shallow running one at that. It even has a built in ice chest for beverages.

Now I'm just wondering....Am I a redneck?

No, but that would be perfect here to go salmon fishing in, or crabbing in some of the bays.

As expected, TransCanada reapplied Friday for a presidential permit for its Keystone XL pipeline.

The company’s application covers the stretch of the proposed pipeline from the U.S.-Canadian border in Montana to Steele City, Neb. TransCanada will supplement the application once an alternative route is selected within Nebraska.

"Our application for a presidential permit builds on more than three years of environmental review already conducted for Keystone XL," TransCanada President and CEO Russ Girling said in a press release. "It was the most comprehensive process ever for a cross-border pipeline and that work should allow our cross-border permit to be processed expeditiously and a decision made once a new route in Nebraska is determined."

Federal environmental reviews have concluded that the pipeline would have minimal impact.

But concern in Nebraska over the state’s environmentally sensitive Sandhills region and uproar by environmental activists in opposition to the entire pipeline has pushed back approval of a presidential permit until at least 2013.

President Barack Obama rejected granting a permit in January after congressional Republicans forced his hand by including a 60-day deadline for a decision in a must-pass payroll tax cut extension plan in December.

He subsequently touted and pledged to expedite permits for the southern route of the pipeline — connecting oil fields in Cushing, Okla., to Texas refineries — which doesn’t require a presidential permit.



Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/75917.html#ixzz1tueb2hCb

Never mind that that the Nebraska governor and the Nebraska senators wanted the route changed. Never mind that the Canadian Company easily changed the route after Obama made them look at other options. Obama must be anti-America if he does anything to stop a Canadian company from build a pipeline right through the middle of the country . . . in order to supply Canadian oil to the Asian market. 

But that doesn't fit Obama's opponent arguments.

Never mind that that the Nebraska governor and the Nebraska senators wanted the route changed. Never mind that the Canadian Company easily changed the route after Obama made them look at other options. Obama must be anti-America if he does anything to stop a Canadian company from build a pipeline right through the middle of the country.

My favorite part of the issue is how the jobs created got multiplied. The company said that as many as 20,000 jobs would be needed to construct the pipeline. Rush Limbaugh has been saying Obama has stopped 200,000 jobs.

He must have just gotten confused by all the zeroes. 

The ruling came by iPhone.

Late Wednesday evening, Judge Bill Harris of the Lamar County Court at Law released his decision in the case of the North Texas farmer, Julia Trigg Crawford, versus the Keystone XL pipeline, owned and operated by the Canadian company TransCanada.

In an email to lawyers involved in the case, the judge announced he was granting TransCanada’s motion for summary judgement and denied Crawford’s plea. The message ended with “Sent from my iPhone.”

After Crawford refused to allow the pipeline on her land, TransCanada used eminent domain last fall to seize her property. She fought back in court, and the case finally came before Judge Harris a few weeks ago. In the meantime, construction began on the southern leg of the controversial pipeline.

“It is absolutely unbelievable to me eminent domain abuse continues in Texas given the revelations made during our court case,” Julia Trigg Crawford says in a statement.

“With every turn we found black holes of responsibility, endless loops of non-accountability, and the cart miles in front of the horse,” Crawford says. “The Texas Railroad Commission says they have no power over eminent domain, yet turns a blind eye when pipelines under their jurisdiction state they indeed get the power from the Commission.”

Much of Crawford’s argument in the case centered around whether or not the pipeline qualified as a “common carrier,” a pipeline that would be in the public interest because it would be available “for hire” for other companies to use.

“So we asked TransCanada to produce their tariff rate schedule, a requirement of all Common Carriers and therefore part of proving the right of eminent domain,” Crawford says in a statement.
“TransCanada’s attorney refused to provide anything, responding in court that tariffs will be provided ‘about the time it gets ready to transport product on the line.’  That means they can’t even produce this proof they qualify as a Common Carrier until after the land is seized and the pipeline built.”

So will Crawford appeal? “It is certainly one of our options, likely a strong one,” she says in an email to StateImpact Texas. “I’m not done…”

In the meantime, construction on the southern leg of the pipeline has begun, and TransCanada legally has the right to start digging on Crawford’s farm.

I figured out how to get Keystone passed. . .and funded by the government!

They need to reclassify it as art.  The largest modern art exhibit in the world spanning the length of the United States.  And, it's functional art because it just happens to carry oil!

Thanks to the Obama administration UC Berkley now boasts the most expensive public funded piece of art in history.  The piece representing $500 billion Million?dollars in taxpayer money sits in a grotto in the UC Berkley Botanical Garden.

I figured out how to get Keystone passed. . .and funded by the government!

They need to reclassify it as art.  The largest modern art exhibit in the world spanning the length of the United States.  And, it's functional art because it just happens to carry oil!

Thanks to the Obama administration UC Berkley now boasts the most expensive public funded piece of art in history.  The piece representing $500 billion Million?dollars in taxpayer money sits in a grotto in the UC Berkley Botanical Garden.

Oh, we've just let him go ahead and babble.  We've thought about letting him have his own subject heading.  There'd be Local politics, National/international, and Gaspar politics.  The latter, of course, would have a warning with it.

Two reporters covering Keystone XL protests for the New York Times were “handcuffed and detained” by a TransCanada security guard, our partners in Texas are reporting.

For weeks, protesters have chained themselves to tractors and fences in attempts to halt construction of the pipeline … The reporters were on the private land at the invitation of the landowner, but were detained for trespassing, according to a spokesperson for the newspaper. After identifying themselves as members of the media, they were released, but told they had to leave the property immediately or they’d be arrested for trespassing.

This is going well...

“New York Times Reporters Detained Covering Keystone XL Protests in East Texas”

That seams pretty F'd up.  Where's the governor in all this?

I'm being a bit of a pedant, but an easement and a right of way are different things.

Naturally Trans-Canada is being made to look like the bad guy because of the actions of some over-zealous local constables.

Being rural Texans, I'm surprised they haven't called in their own "private security force" to patrol their property from carpetbaggers.

SUMNER, Texas (AP) — Oil has long lived in harmony with farmland and cattle across the Texas landscape, a symbiosis nurtured by generations and built on an unspoken honor code that allowed agriculture to thrive while oil was extracted.

Proud Texans have long welcomed the industry because of the cash it brings to sustain agriculture, but also see its presence as part of their patriotic duty to help wean the United States off "foreign" oil. So the answer to companies that wanted to build pipelines has usually been simple: Yes.

Enter TransCanada.

As the company pursues construction of a 1,179-mile-long cross-country pipeline meant to bring Canadian tar sands oil to South Texas refineries, it's finding opposition in the unlikeliest of places: oil-friendly Texas, a state that has more pipelines snaking through the ground than any other.

In the minds of some landowners approached by TransCanada for land, the company has broken the code.

Nearly half the steel TransCanada is using is not American-made and the company won't promise to use local workers exclusively; it can't guarantee the oil will remain in the United States. It has snatched land. Possibly most egregious: The company has behaved like an arrogant foreigner, unworthy of operating in Texas.

To fight back, insulted Texas landowners are filing and appealing dozens of lawsuits, threatening to further delay a project that has already encountered many obstacles. Others are allowing activists to go on their land to stage protests. Several have been arrested.

"We've fought wars for it. We stood our ground at the Alamo for it. There's a lot of reasons that Texans are very proud of their land and proud when you own land that you are the master of that land and you control that land," said Julia Trigg Crawford, who is fighting the condemnation of a parcel of her family's 650-acre Red'Arc Farm in Sumner, about 115 miles northeast of Dallas.

Oil and agriculture have lived in peace in part because a one-time payment from a pipeline company or monthly royalties from a production rig can help finance a ranch or farm that struggle today to turn a profit from agriculture. The oil giants also respected landowners' fierce Texas independence, even sometimes drilling in a different yard or rerouting a pipeline to ensure easy access to the minerals below.

TransCanada is different. For one, it has more often sought and received court permission to condemn land when property owners didn't agree to an easement.

"This is a foreign company," Crawford said. "Most people believe that as this product gets to the Houston area and is refined, it's probably then going to be shipped outside the United States. So if this product is not going to wind up as gasoline or diesel fuel in your vehicles or mine then what kind of energy independence is that creating for us?"

While using foreign steel for a U.S. pipeline and condemning land is not all that unusual, Keystone XL has been so controversial nationally — sparking protests in Washington, Nebraska and other states, and even getting a mention in the presidential debate on Tuesday — that it may have given Texans the push they needed to fight.

Activists have handcuffed themselves to machinery. A group has moved into a grove of trees on a TransCanada easement. A 78-year-old great-grandmother, Eleanor Fairchild, whose late husband worked in the oil industry, spent a night in jail after trespassing — along with actress Daryl Hannah of "Splash" fame — on land condemned on her 425-acre farm. On Monday, eight others were arrested for their protest activities.

TransCanada's pipeline, some landowners say, is more worrisome than those built by other companies because of the tar sands oil the company wants to transport. They point to an 800,000-gallon spill of mostly tar sands oil in Michigan's Kalamazoo River in 2010. It took Enbridge, the company that owns that pipeline, 17 hours to detect the rupture, and the cleanup is still incomplete.

With a pipeline, landowners give up control of the land for a one-time check, risking a spill that could contaminate their land or water for years. It's a risk many are willing to take in exchange for cash — to a point.

Some say the risk of a spill now is too high to cooperate. Others want guarantees TransCanada will take full responsibility for a spill.

Many just want respect.

Most pipeline projects in Texas have been completed with an average of 4 percent to 10 percent of condemned land. TransCanada, however, has condemned more than 100 of the 800 or so tracts — or about 12.5 percent — of the land it needed to complete a 485-mile portion of the pipeline that runs through Texas.

Many of the lawsuits in Texas are about TransCanada's "common carrier" status. This allows companies building projects benefiting the public to condemn private property. The Texas Supreme Court recently ruled if a landowner challenges a condemnation, the company must prove its project is for the public good.

Crawford, whose family has denied other pipelines access to their land, argues that since TransCanada's pipeline will have only one access point — or a place where oil can get into the pipe — at a hub in Cushing, Okla., it does not qualify for the status, which requires the pipeline be accessible in Texas.

"This is not about the money," said Crawford, who notes that TransCanada's final offer of $20,000 amounts to less than $1 a day over 60 years, less time than her family has been on the land. "This is about the right of a landowner to control what happens on their land."

David Dodson, a TransCanada spokesman in Houston, said the company has agreements with 60,000 landowners in North America, hundreds of them in Texas. Many have been reached easily, he said. The problems in Texas, he believes, may just be a sign of the times.

"These days, anyone who attempts to build a linear infrastructure project, Texas, wherever it is, it doesn't matter, is facing increased opposition," Dodson said.

David Holland's 3,850-acre rice farm and ranch in southeast Jefferson County is littered with nearly 50 pipelines. In the five years since he was first approached by TransCanada, he said he has signed contracts with two other companies. He insists he would do the same for TransCanada — if they offered him fair value for his 10.5 acres.

Until now, Holland said, he and other landowners had given pipeline companies a roughly 20 percent discount because it was cheaper than fighting Big Oil. TransCanada offered him more than $400,000 for his land. But that, he said, was about $200 less for every 16.5 feet than he had previously received. After Holland declined, the court allowed TransCanada to take the land for $13 for every 16.5 feet — totaling slightly more than $20,000.

"Every landowner in the state is furious at them," he said.

Some landowners have reached agreements without a problem. Henry Duncan, whose 200-acre farm is across the road from the Crawford's, wouldn't say how much TransCanada paid, but feels he was fairly compensated for his 7 acres. He does wish they would use American-made steel for the pipe and hire local workers. He, too, feels they bullied landowners, but is realistic.

Pipeline money helps keep his 100 head of cattle roaming the pastures. It could help him and his wife as they age.

"To be quite honest, I'd like to see another one come through because they pay good," Duncan said.

It soulds great and everything, but what they heck does he intend to do to help us "own our own energy"?

Perhaps taking away unused leaseholds and reletting them to people who will actually use them? (I don't know, but that is something he mentioned in the debate)

They are likely just less atractive production wise than other areas.

Perhaps. Or perhaps they're not drilling there because they like prices to remain high.

HOUSTON (AP) - A Texas judge has ordered TransCanada to temporarily halt work on a private property where it is building part of an oil pipeline designed to carry tar sands oil from Canada to the Gulf Coast, the latest legal battle to plague a project that has encountered numerous obstacles nationwide.

Texas landowner Michael Bishop, who is defending himself in his legal battle against the oil giant, filed his lawsuit in the Nacogdoches County courthouse, arguing that TransCanada lied to Texans when it said it would be using the Keystone XL pipeline to transport crude oil.

Tar sands oil - or diluted bitumen - does not meet the definition as outlined in Texas and federal statutory codes which define crude oil as "liquid hydrocarbons extracted from the earth at atmospheric temperatures," Bishop said. When tar sands are extracted in Alberta, Canada, the material is almost a solid and "has to be heated and diluted in order to even be transmitted," he told The Associated Press exclusively.

"They lied to the American people," Bishop said.

Texas County Court at Law Judge Jack Sinz signed a temporary restraining order and injunction Friday, saying there was sufficient cause to halt work until a hearing Dec. 19. The two-week injunction went into effect Tuesday after Bishop posted bond.

TransCanada spokesman Shawn Howard said later in a statement that the judge had agreed to push the hearing up to Thursday, Dec. 13.

David Dodson, a spokesman for TransCanada, has said courts have already ruled that tar sands are a form of crude oil. The company said in a statement emailed Tuesday that work on Bishop's property is underway and that the injunction will not have an effect on construction.

"We are on track to bring this pipeline into operation in late 2013," the statement said.

Environmentalists are concerned that if the pipeline leaks or a spill occurs, the heavy tar sands will contaminate water and land. The tar sands, they argue, are more difficult to clean than regular crude, and U.S. pipeline regulations are not suited to transport the product. They also say refining the product will further pollute the air in the Texas Gulf Coast. The state already leads the nation in greenhouse gas emissions and industrial pollution.

In February, another judge briefly halted work on the pipeline in northeast Texas due to archaeological artifacts on the property. The judge later ruled the work could resume. The pipeline is being built, although the landowner is fighting the condemnation of her land.

TransCanada wants to build the pipeline to transport tar sands from Alberta to the Gulf Coast, but has encountered roadblocks along the way. To cross the U.S.-Canadian border, the company needs a presidential permit, which was rejected earlier this year by President Barack Obama, who suggested the company reroute to avoid a sensitive environmental area in Nebraska. The company plans to reroute that portion.

In the meantime, Obama encouraged the company to pursue a shorter portion of the pipeline from Oklahoma to Texas, which would help relieve a bottleneck in Cushing. TransCanada received the necessary permits for that southern portion earlier this year and began construction.

But many Texas landowners have taken to the courts to fight the company's land condemnations in a state that has long wed its fortunes to oil.

Bishop owns 20 acres in Douglass, a town about 160 miles north of Houston. He used to raise poultry and goats on the land where he lives with his wife and 16-year-old daughter, he said, but sold the animals about two years ago because of the planned pipeline. Initially, the Vietnam War veteran said, he fought the company's attempt to condemn his land, but settled because he could not afford the lawyer's fees of $10,000.

Bishop said he settled under "duress," so he bought a law book and decided to defend himself. Since then, he has filed a lawsuit in Austin against the Texas Railroad Commission, the state agency that oversees pipelines, arguing it failed to properly investigate the pipeline and protect groundwater, public health and safety.

Aware that the oil giant could have a battery of lawyers and experts at the hearing later this month, Bishop, a 64-year-old retired chemist currently in medical school, said he is determined to fight.

"Bring 'em on. I'm a United States Marine. I'm not afraid of anyone. I'm not afraid of them," he said. "When I'm done with them, they will know that they've been in a fight. I may not win, but I'm going to hurt them."

For today's friday document dump, the State Department issued their assessment of the Keystone XL pipeline, ruling it environmentally sound.
http://keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov/documents/organization/205719.pdf

Now, what do you want to bet, the administration scrambles to find another way to block it by next week?
(http://static4.businessinsider.com/image/4eb99c4069beddbb65000016/daryl-hannah-protests-transcanadas-keystone-xl-pipeline.jpg)

For today's friday document dump, the State Department issued their assessment of the Keystone XL pipeline, ruling it environmentally sound.
http://keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov/documents/organization/205719.pdf

Now, what do you want to bet, the administration scrambles to find another way to block it by next week?

(Reuters) - The State Department issued on Friday a long-awaited draft environmental assessment of the Keystone XL pipeline project that would link Canada's oil sands to refineries in Texas.

The pipeline is strongly backed by the energy industry and adamantly opposed by environmentalists. The review looked at greenhouse gas emissions related to the project and its shipping alternatives, including trucks and trains. It did not conclude which transport route was cleanest.

Issuing an assessment that ran more than 2,000 pages, the Obama administration completed a step it had to take before a period of public comment. A final decision on TransCanada Corp's project is not expected until July or August.

Starting next Friday the review will be open to public comment for 45 days. After the State Department finalizes the review, it will determine with input from government agencies whether the pipeline is in the national interest, which could take another 90 days.

A decision on the Keystone pipeline, would carry more than 800,000 barrels of oil, has been pending for more than four and a half years.

Many environmentalists oppose the project because oil sands are more carbon-intensive to produce than average crudes used in the United States.

Supporters of Keystone say it would provide thousands of jobs, drain a glut of domestic crude oil from the North Dakota oil boom and strengthen North American energy security.

The State Department released a draft environmental impact assessment of the controversial Keystone XL pipeline Friday afternoon, suggesting that blocking the project would not have a significant impact on either the future development of Canada’s oil sands region or U.S. oil consumption.

The analysis, which will inform the decision President Obama must make later this year on whether to grant TransCanada the permit to construct the pipeline connecting Alberta’s oil sands to Gulf Coast refineries, does not give environmentalists the answer they had hoped for in the debate over the project’s climate impact. Opponents say a presidential veto of the project would send a powerful message to the world about the importance of moving away from fossil fuels and make it more difficult for Canada to export its energy-intensive oil.

But the detailed environmental report — which runs close to 2,000 pages long — also questions one of the strongest arguments for the pipeline, by suggesting America can meet its energy needs over the next decade without it. The growth in rail transport of oil from western Canada and the Bakken Formation on the Great Plains and other pipelines, the analysis says, could meet the country’s energy needs for the next decade, even if Keystone XL never gets built.

The president is not likely to make a final decision on TransCanada’s permit application until mid-summer at the earliest. The analysis will be subject to at least 45 days of public comment once it is published next Friday in the Federal Register, and the State Department will have to respond to hundreds of thousands of comments before finalizing its environmental impact statement. The State Department will also have to conduct a separate analysis of whether the project is in the national interest, a question on which eight other agencies will offer input over 90 days.

Jim Murphy, senior counsel for the National Wildlife Federation, said there is no way for Obama to reconcile his commitment to addressing climate change with approval of the pipeline.

“As a practical matter, without access to major U.S. ports from KXL and other routes, tar sands production will be substantially slowed,” Murphy said. “With each major artery to a market that is clogged, the chances of stifling tar sands production greatly increases and investors will only stand behind this fuel for so long and withstand so much market uncertainty and pressure to keep this resource in the ground.”

Supporters of the project say it will ensure a secure supply of oil from Canada, one of the nation’s closest allies, and will generate high-paying U.S. jobs over the project’s two-year construction.

“This is one step closer to unleashing thousands of jobs that will benefit labor workers who have some of the highest unemployment in the country,” said Sabrina Fang, a spokeswoman for the American Petroleum Institute. ”This project is also going to help reduce our dependence on oil from less stable parts of the world.”

The Keystone XL has sparked widespread opposition along the pipeline route, where it crossed rivers, ranches and farms, and across the country, where critics said it would facilitate the exploitation of Canada’s oil sands, or tar sands. Because the extraction of bitumen from those sands is an energy-intensive process, it emits more greenhouse gases than the extraction of oil from conventional reservoirs.

The Calgary-based pipeline company TransCanada first applied for a permit in September 2008. In February 2012, Obama postponed a ruling after Congress tried to force him to approve it by setting a deadline in legislation that extended the payroll tax cut. The president cited the pipeline’s path through more than 90 miles of the ecologically sensitive Sand Hills region of Nebraska and said he would consider a revised application.

TransCanada filed a new application in May, pushing the route further east in Nebraska, so that it ran through only about 10 miles of sensitive areas.

Obama also embraced the southern leg of the pipeline, which would extend from Cushing, Okla., to a point just north of Port Arthur, Tex. By late summer, the Army Corps of Engineers had issued permits, and TransCanada chief executive Russ Girling recently said 45 percent of the construction of that leg was complete. Pipeline foes turned to civil disobedience, camping out on platforms hoisted into trees in the pipeline’s path.

TransCanada is waiting for approval of the northern leg of the pipeline, which would run from Hardisty, Alberta, to Steele City in southern Nebraska. An existing pipeline would connect the two legs.

I don't know on what planet some of you get your info but the administration does not, not want this pipeline to go through.  They need it to go through, over all politically, and economically.  BUT, they will indeed have to consider the environmentalists.  The administration will likely make a lot of noise on behalf of the environmentalists concerns in order to appease them somewhat, and will also throw them a bone or two "tighter regulations and higher energy efficiency standards here, more spending on renewables, perhaps a new protected area/national park there (likely in the oceans or a coastal area), etc."

2. Every year, there are little "spills", several injuries, and deaths. It's something we rarely hear about in the news, but there are miles and miles of pipeline across this country and all does not go well. I had dpne a search and learned there are several incidents yearly.

Leave aside for the moment the merits or not of the Keystone Pipeline.  There are a lot of other pipelines.  Can you think of a safer way to transport all that stuff?

Leave aside for the moment the merits or not of the Keystone Pipeline.  There are a lot of other pipelines.  Can you think of a safer way to transport all that stuff?

It's not all the same "stuff." This is not crude oil. It is much worse. It is "tar sands oil". It is a volatile, exotic hydrocarbon slurry containing benzene and arsenic. It is nothing like crude oil. It is heavier than water, so it goes straight down into the groundwater. Nobody knows how to clean it up.

It's not all the same "stuff." This is not crude oil. It is much worse. It is "tar sands oil". It is a volatile, exotic hydrocarbon slurry containing benzene and arsenic. It is nothing like crude oil. It is heavier than water, so it goes straight down into the groundwater. Nobody knows how to clean it up.

It's not all the same "stuff." This is not crude oil. It is much worse. It is "tar sands oil". It is a volatile, exotic hydrocarbon slurry containing benzene and arsenic. It is nothing like crude oil. It is heavier than water, so it goes straight down into the groundwater. Nobody knows how to clean it up.

It's not all the same "stuff." This is not crude oil. It is much worse. It is "tar sands oil". It is a volatile, exotic hydrocarbon slurry containing benzene and arsenic. It is nothing like crude oil. It is heavier than water, so it goes straight down into the groundwater. Nobody knows how to clean it up.

Harold Hamm, CEO of major Oklahoma-based petroleum producer Continental Resources, used to be against the Keystone XL pipeline.

Then he was for it.

Now he says the pipeline isn’t really needed anymore. At least, he’s not counting on it, as northeast Texas public radio station KETR’s Mark Haslett reports:

[Hamm] has said that his company’s booming operations in North Dakota’s Bakken field are relying on rail transport to move its product.

In a conversation with Reuters, when asked whether Keystone XL is still needed, Hamm said “not for our Bakken (crude oil). And is it needed for the industry? I don’t think so … not in the U.S.

StateImpact reported in September 2012 that “The Oklahoma oilman stood alongside landowners and environmentalists, and formed a lobby group of Oklahoma oilmen that successfully squashed permits for the pipeline.”

He didn’t want cheap Canadian crude undercutting Continental’s market.

But that all changed when TransCanada, the company building the pipeline, agreed to build another line connecting the Bakken Field in the northern U.S. — where Hamm has oil interests — to the rest of the project.

Suddenly, Hamm had a new way to get crude to refineries on the gulf coast. As an energy advisor for the Mitt Romney presidential campaign, he helped develop an energy policy that was very much pro-Keystone XL.

Since then, however, Hamm tells Reuters railroads have become more and more important and viable as a way to transport crude, a trend StateImpact reported on Dec. 6.

“Rail has been a big factor and, you know, proven to be a very effective way,” Hamm said on Dec. 12 Continental now ships 90 percent of its crude oil by rail, Hamm told Reuters.

Continental still plans to use the Keystone XL extension it pushed to get built.

"They" are doing great right now.  Biggest fossil fuel boom in decades!

I have to admit, President Obama has been great for the oil & gas industry (not that he intended to be).

NG prices may be low, but volume is through the roof! Ethanol is on it's way out with increased demand for "real fuel" and fewer ethanol processing permits. Old wells here in Oklahoma that have been capped for decades (many a friend of mine owns up in Owasso) are now being re-opened, because even with the high ratio of saltwater that has to be disposed of, the separated product is now profitable.

Now profitable.... just as it has been for the last 30+ years.  It has NEVER, in the history of the industry, since the 1840's, been unprofitable.  It is, and always has been, an energy "crisis" only because the industry propaganda made it that way.

The only question that has ever had any validity for the industry is, "Should be be satisfied with mega-mega-profits, or manipulate the market for mega-mega-mega profits...?"


Why is it you don't understand this at your age??

At $9.00 a barrel in the early 1980’s it was unprofitable for smaller producers. That’s why so many marginal wells were shut in at that time. It cost more to get it to the surface and transported off the lease than it was worth.

Enhanced extraction methods like steam flood or fracking and horizontal drilling are more expensive processes than conventional drilling.  If oil prices ever dropped below $50/bbl you would see a lot of the supply shut off until prices went back up. 

But don't ignore the obvious. The prices were low because supply was high versus demand. Even so, the industry was profitable and always has been as H suggests. Even in 1974 when I worked at Cities Service marketing and the price of a bbl of crude skyrocketed, I remember seeing memos stating that our 10% ROI was not enough and that we needed to increase our exploitation of the market. Its never enough and that's ok. Stockholders like that attitude. But you must be aware, that outside of incompetence, they very much control their own market like DeBeers does diamonds and NFL does football.

Or maybe Mary Fallin is responsible for their profitability. You'd have to ask the cabbage man. ;)

Yes the industry was so profitable in the early 1980's that tens of thousands lost their jobs and some Oklahoma towns nearly became extinct.

I remember seeing memos stating that our 10% ROI was not enough and that we needed to increase our exploitation of the market.

Yes the industry was so profitable in the early 1980's that tens of thousands lost their jobs and some Oklahoma towns nearly became extinct.

Oooooh.  Please check out the ROI on pharmaceuticals, the network media, and maybe a few others for comparison.

This is left as an exercise for the student.   :D

/sarcasm  The oil industry has been mostly profitable but the only thing most of us see is the price of gasoline and that has several middlepersons involved.  Why did the price of gas go up $.10 today other than the weather report?  I doubt Exxon, etc caused that.

If I get a chance I will. This was in 1974. That was a darn good figure at that time.

Interesting paper from the period that supports my claims. It is also very cool to see the thinking at the time as to why the crisis emerged.

http://www2.epa.gov/aboutepa/epas-position-energy-crisis

"Return on investment by the petroleum industry has been greater in Europe and Japan than in the U.S. The industry's return on investment was 9-10 percent in Europe and about 6 percent in the U.S. in 1972."

That would imply that Cities' roi in 1974 was quite good.

As was true on the demand side, economic factors have been at the root of the problems with supply.

The oil import quota system constrained crude oil imports and provided a disincentive to construct domestic refineries and petroleum facilities until the system was discontinued in April 1973. Since that time construction of over a million barrels per day of new refinery capacity has been announced by the industry, though the current international situation has caused some of these plans to be held in abeyance.

Natural gas price regulations have kept prices far below their free market value. This means that the industry has had a low incentive to explore for or produce natural gas for interstate markets.

Return on investment by the petroleum industry has been greater in Europe and Japan than in the U.S. The industry's return on investment was 9-10 percent in Europe and about 6 percent in the U.S. in 1972.

Well, we could pull quotes out of that article all day long to bolster our opinions of how and why our oil crises keep reappearing. Another quote blamed it in part on our stubborn resistance to eliminating the oil depletion allowance which artificially effects price. Forty years later its still deemed necessary.

I am not an economics major but I would guess the roi for the time might be better viewed in terms of that period's inflation, and other industry's comparative roi's. In the oil industry, 10% was an excellent roi in 1973/74.

We are so smart! As long as the really smart guys are out shopping ;)

I would have been thrilled with a 10% raise that year. That spike in 73/74 no doubt was due to gas prices skyrocketing.

At $9.00 a barrel in the early 1980’s it was unprofitable for smaller producers. That’s why so many marginal wells were shut in at that time. It cost more to get it to the surface and transported off the lease than it was worth.

Enhanced extraction methods like steam flood or fracking and horizontal drilling are more expensive processes than conventional drilling.  If oil prices ever dropped below $50/bbl you would see a lot of the supply shut off until prices went back up. 

The southern leg of the Keystone XL pipeline began moving oil out of Cushing on Wednesday.

Developer TransCanada Corp. bills the $2.3 billion project as the “safest pipeline built in America to date,” while opponents insist it is an accident waiting to happen, citing previous pipeline spills involving oil from Canada's oil sands.

The 487-mile pipeline between Cushing and refineries near Houston is expected to relieve the glut of oil stored at the hub where West Texas Intermediate crude is priced.

“The completion of the pipeline does provide a safe and direct connection between an important oil hub, probably the most important oil hub on this continent, in Cushing, Oklahoma, and the world's most efficient refiners in the U.S. Gulf Coast,” TransCanada CEO Russ Girling said Wednesday at a news conference in Calgary.

The pipeline, dubbed the Gulf Coast Project by TransCanada, was built over the past 18 months after the Obama administration refused to grant a permit for the full Keystone XL line.

Keystone XL needs a presidential permit since it would cross the boundary between the United States and Canada. It would move crude from Canada's oil sands and the Bakken formation in North Dakota and Montana to refiners along the Gulf Coast.

TransCanada has renewed its application for the full transcontinental pipeline, but the State Department has not made a decision on it.

While that project remains on hold, Girling hailed the completion of the Gulf Coast pipeline.

“It's an import milestone for Canada. It's an important milestone for customers and the workers and companies that helped us build this project, but it's also very important as a milestone for all Americans who will benefit from enhanced energy security and enhanced reliability of that supply,” he said.

Girling said oil transported on the new pipeline will be processed by American refiners, who now will have access to cheaper domestic crude.

Neighborhood watch-style plan

Critics complain that refined products made from crude delivered by Keystone likely will be exported. Some also have questioned the integrity of the new pipeline.

East Texas landowner Julia Trigg Crawford said she saw crews working on part of the line over the weekend. She has been fighting in court against TransCanada's use of eminent domain to gain access to her land for the pipeline.

Crawford and other Texas residents have formed a neighborhood watch-style program to monitor the pipeline for leaks.

“This will be a network of people that have skin in the game,” Crawford said Wednesday in a conference call.

Like many members of Texas Pipeline Watch, Crawford said she plans to walk the pipeline's route through her property regularly because she doesn't trust TransCanada's monitoring technology.

Up to 830,000 barrels a day

The Gulf Coast pipeline will transport up to 520,000 barrels of oil a day in its first year of operation. It eventually will be able to move up to 830,000 barrels a day.

Jane Kleeb, executive director of Keystone XL opposition group Bold Nebraska, said pipeline opponents will continue their fight against the project.

“Citizens are not stopping,” she said. “Citizens are watching this pipeline like a hawk.”

Kinda funny in that opening this leg of the pipeline removes 4,150 tanker trucks and rail cars each day! (standard tanker holds 200 barrels)

One would assume that environmental risk and carbon footprint thousands of tankers driven by this guy
(http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/MSNBC/Components/Photo/_new/120523-jerald-reiter-9a.380%3B380%3B7%3B70%3B0.jpg)
would be more significant to the opposition than the risk associated with possible pipeline leaks.

Logically, environmental groups should be celebrating, but then again, it's difficult apply logic to many of those groups.

 

I keep trying to find the downside.  It's all based on a pretty irrational fear.  There's probably as much likelihood of a SW Airlines 737 landing in their backyard as there is an oil leak from the pipeline.

Could you imagine what would have happened if the Alaska Pipeline had never been built?

Alternatives

We are a successful species because we continue to be capable of extracting the most energy from the least amount of resources in increasingly efficient ways. Just a few hundred years ago we relied on wind, solar, and hydro for our energy. Our mills ran on wind and water and our homes were heated by wood grown over decades with sunshine.

I'm just not sure what they will chain themselves to?

My main issue is that we used eminent domain to take property from United States citizens to allow a Canadian company to pipe their oil to the Gulf of Mexico to sell to other parts of the world.

Yes, building the pipeline made jobs for Americans and was good for states like Oklahoma. But the path selected for the pipe installation only cared about what was the cheapest route for the Canadian company.

It just seemed, and still does an odd decision. But since oil companies rule America, it happened.

Fast forward a few hundred years and we will be extracting energy from heavy water, and the bonds between the atoms themselves.

The really big question is; why are we waiting on that??

So lets make some comparisons. For the sake of argument, we'll just look at 30 or so other companies where billions of dollars was taken from citizens to fund energy development.  All of these companies are now bankrupt, and those that are publicly traded have investors who lost thousands (I personally lost thousands in Evergreen).  All of these were heavily promoted by the president as the success stories of green energy.  They also constituted a large pool of political donors.  The only people who benefited from the funds stolen from the American people were the CEOs, Owners, and officers who were able to extract their fortunes before the public was aware of the scams.

Evergreen Solar ($25 million)
SpectraWatt ($500,000)
Solyndra ($535 million)
Beacon Power ($43 million)
Nevada Geothermal ($98.5 million)
SunPower ($1.2 billion)
First Solar ($1.46 billion)
Babcock and Brown ($178 million)
EnerDel’s subsidiary Ener1 ($118.5 million)
Amonix ($5.9 million)
Fisker Automotive ($529 million)
Abound Solar ($400 million)
A123 Systems ($279 million)
Willard and Kelsey Solar Group ($700,981)
Johnson Controls ($299 million)
Brightsource ($1.6 billion)
ECOtality ($126.2 million)
Raser Technologies ($33 million)
Energy Conversion Devices ($13.3 million)
Mountain Plaza, Inc. ($2 million)
Olsen’s Crop Service and Olsen’s Mills Acquisition Company ($10 million)
Range Fuels ($80 million)
Thompson River Power ($6.5 million)
Stirling Energy Systems ($7 million)
Azure Dynamics ($5.4 million)
GreenVolts ($500,000)
Vestas ($50 million)
LG Chem’s subsidiary Compact Power ($151 million)
Nordic Windpower ($16 million)
Navistar ($39 million)
Satcon ($3 million)
Konarka Technologies Inc. ($20 million)
Mascoma Corp. ($100 million)

So, if we make a comparison, none of these companies provided a sustainable return in either new technology, energy efficiency, jobs, or investment to the people of the Untied States, and many left vacant facilities and environmental disasters in their wake that required a secondary investment to clean up.

Conversely, TransCanada, employs thousands of Americans and continues to grow.  They are not transferring wealth from the public to fill their coffers or the pockets of their officers, on the contrary they are adding to the economy and building wealth for American Citizens.  There is indeed quite a bit of demand for the added bandwidth from Oklahoma to the gulf, and the pipeline translates into 4,000 less tankers over the roads and rails EACH DAY!

Unlike the companies above, the keystone represents a reduction in the total carbon footprint associated with the transmission of energy, and may represent the greenest project completed during president Obama's terms as monarch.

Like I said, I'm not a fan of eminent domain, but in this instance they are not confiscating any property, and the public benefit seems well justified.  I mean it's not like they are using billions in tax money to pay off political donors or anything. 

If creating jobs, increasing the investment and retirement income for Americans, reducing the cost of energy production, decreasing the risk of environmental disaster, lowering the carbon footprint of energy transmission, increasing public safety, and moving us even closer to more efficient means of energy production is greed, then count me in!

Halliburton no-bid contracts    $95 billion.

It is amazing that we gave Halliburton (run for years by Dick Cheney) $95 billion in contracts without bidding and republicans never said a word, but a few billion in tax incentives to alternative energy companies is suddenly outrageous.

It is amazing that we gave Halliburton (run for years by Dick Cheney) $95 billion in contracts without bidding and republicans never said a word, but a few billion in tax incentives to alternative energy companies is suddenly outrageous.

TransCanadian pipeline explosion leaves thousands without power in bitter cold...

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/manitoba-pipeline-explosion-cuts-heat-to-4-000-amid-extreme-cold-1.2511585

Of course, this could never happen here.

TransCanadian pipeline explosion leaves thousands without power in bitter cold...

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/manitoba-pipeline-explosion-cuts-heat-to-4-000-amid-extreme-cold-1.2511585

Of course, this could never happen here.

Unfortunately risk is part of supplying energy needs no matter what form of energy is used.  The best we can do is mitigate those risks with smarter technologies like pipeline, until our technologies take us beyond the need for midstream transmission.  Unfortunately to achieve this level of safety and efficiency it is necessary to overcome harmful political BS.

Unfortunately to achieve this level of safety and efficiency it is necessary to overcome harmful political BS.

And yet, any time that mitigation is discussed, the RWRE's scream bloody murder about the "unwarranted government intrusion" that would make use of those technologies you advanced - things like mandating internal inspections on ALL pipelines.  Mandating weld inspections on ALL pipelines as they are built - said technology being available since the mid 80's for plastic and before that for metal!!  But according to the industry of the 80's, 90's and probably even now - that would be too expensive and "add cost" - plaintive bleat moment from industry.  And Federal DOT goes along with it for the most part SINCE the early 80's.  (You do remember our frenzy to deregulate everything in the world - or were you too young for awareness at that time?)

It was and mostly still is, a "don't ask, don't tell" kind of thing - if we don't inspect, then we don't know the metal is rotten, so it can't be our fault when a pipe explodes.

Would require new pipelines to achieve that reasonable goal??  Oh, shucks....but wait...isn't that just what is being discussed here?  Why, yes, I believe it is!!  

Absolute BS.  The pipeline industry operates under strict guidelines and PM schedules, it’s in their own self-interest to do so.  Thickness and joint testing is a part of regular PM’s on pipelines as well as full penetration weld tests on every last joint weld on a pipeline under construction.

It doesn't surprise me that is your view. Spills and massive pollution are just harmful political BS.

No.  Representing the pipeline industry as more dangerous than trucking oil in 4,000 tankers a day across the surface of the Earth is harmful political BS.   :)

If the impact on the environment is actually your concern, instead of defending political failures for their positions, you would be celebrating that the Keystone South translates into far less risk of spill and a massive reduction in pollution.  Not to mention safer roads and rails.

Absolutely not.

What fantasy world are you in??  Maybe for the last few years - VERY few!! - it has been improving, but I have been directly involved with both DOT AND oil/gas companies with products that do EXACTLY what I was talking about - and that "head in the sand" is EXACTLY how it works!!   Or hopefully "worked"....

One would hope "enlightened self-interest" would be a major driving force in the absence of government regulation.  Kind of like with the banking industry here a few years ago.... oh, wait...!!  But as we see on a fairly regular basis, there are explosions, leaks, etc.  Because for whatever reason, their PM is just inadequate, or the installation was flawed to start, or they just look the other way.  By far and away the biggest problem is the age of the pipeline infrastructure - a LOT of it is way past the design age, and not being proactively replaced before the catastrophic event.  Else, there would be NO catastrophic event....there would be new, improved metal/plastic, piggable/inspectable pipe!

And some very good companies here in town have been working hard to get the pipeline owner/operators to clean up their act - for decades - places like McElroy Manufacturing and TDW, et al.  Hopefully they, and others like them, are making an impact and owner/operator's ARE starting to understand it is in their self-interest.

I thought you worked closely with pipeline people??

Trucks don't do a lot of long haul oil trucking.  Trucks are usually at gathering stations bringing to a terminal, then from the refinery to the local distribution network.  Lots of trucks, with pipeline or train in between 'nodes'.

Yes I do work closely with them, that’s why I can call your accusations of systemic "looking the other way" complete and utter BS with absolute confidence.  It is not in the interest and never has been in the interest of a pipeline company to shepherd faulty and dangerous equipment, that’s why they have employed companies like TD Williamson to pig their pipes for decades as well as companies like IRIS NDT for weld and thickness inspections.  TDW does not have any sort of enforcement authority to pressure anyone to “clean up their act”, all they do is provide pipeline inspection and repair services.

Mistakes happen.  Human error happens.  It happens under the closest scrutiny and laboratory-like environments.  Inspectors don’t always catch that last loose rivet or wire chafe on a new 767.  

Mistakes cost lives and millions in profits, that is why it’s always been in the best self-interest of pipelines to do everything possible to prevent leaks.  Much like it’s in the best self-interest of American Airlines to keep the wings on all it’s planes, or in my case to make sure repairs to pressure vessels have been done properly and been properly tested prior to being put back in use.

I’m not sure where your deep-seated hatred of corporate America started, but it’s forced you to some completely absurd conclusions.

Sure. . .and rail is only about 4X more likely to encounter spill and environmental disaster than pipeline.
(http://www.manhattan-institute.org/assets/images/ib_23_t6.gif)

So again, my point is that the "environmentalist" should rejoice that the Keystone South is reducing that risk SIGNIFIGANTLY, but unfortunately most "environmentalists" simply use the moniker for political purposes, or worse as subterfuge.

OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) — Oklahoma leaders are praising the renewed momentum in Congress to approve the northern leg of the Keystone XL pipeline, although the project will have only a minimal economic impact on the Sooner State.

Construction of the Oklahoma portion of the pipeline is already finished. If approved, the 36-inch-diameter pipeline will carry crude oil from Canada to U.S. refineries in the Midwest and Gulf Coast.

The current debate in Congress is centered on the proposed northern leg, which would run from Hardesty, Alberta, Canada, through Montana and South Dakota to Steele City, Nebraska.

The Gulf Coast leg of the project began carrying oil earlier this year from the north-central Oklahoma town of Cushing to refineries in the Gulf Coast.

So I guess anyone pushing for this as a massive jobs creator for Oklahoma could move on to the next project.

The Oklahoma leg was already in place before the Canadian firm started its Eminent Domain land-grab in the other states.

Jobs?  It will sustain some existing upper-tier union workers, and a rush of temporary construction positions.

Keystone XL Work Already Completed in Oklahoma

http://publicradiotulsa.org/post/keystone-xl-work-already-completed-oklahoma (http://publicradiotulsa.org/post/keystone-xl-work-already-completed-oklahoma)

(http://mediad.publicbroadcasting.net/p/kwgs/files/styles/card_280/public/Pipeline_monument_Cushing_OK-550x362.jpg)

So I guess anyone pushing for this as a massive jobs creator for Oklahoma could move on to the next project.

And yet, the newly elected US Liar,....er, uh, Senator....is still making mewling sounds about the thousands of new jobs!  Well, I am curious as to exactly what it is about this state that prides itself on having the Ten Commandments on the Capital grounds, then repeatedly elects so MANY people who regularly, systematically, and intentionally break number 9...?

How is that hypocrisy and self-deception resolved in their minds??  It is a puzzle... one I will likely never understand.


Not to mention the Adulteress In Chief that has now been elected twice.... number 7 on the to 10 list as well as number 9.

Just used Google Earth to look at the paths involved.  To take oil from Alberta to Houston to Panama Canal means the oil is going to move about 4,000 miles just to get to the entrance to the Canal.  Versus about 580 miles to get to the Pacific on the west side of Canada.

Then, when loaded on a ship and taken to China, add about 6,000 miles shipping from Canada.  As opposed to right at 10,000 miles from the Panama Canal.

Yeah...this makes ALL kinds of economic sense!

I think Obama was trying to make a similar point. 3 Pinocchios--for whatever that is worth.  :D

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/11/20/obamas-claim-that-keystone-crude-would-go-everywhere-else-but-the-united-states/

Transcanada - the company that is building the pipeline - has said that the oil is most likely to be exported to China and other parts of southeast Asia.  

They have also contradicted Paul Ryan's and even the US State Department lies about how many jobs are going to be created - there will NEVER be 42,000 new jobs for any length of time.  Transcanada estimates about 4,000.

The liars say tens of thousands construction jobs will be for 'over two years'.  Transcanada has said it should be less than 2 years, and probably less than or near 18 months.

The liars try to say that thousands of jobs will continue "forever".  The real numbers from the company estimate 35 to 50 permanent jobs.

The liars wax poetic about "good paying jobs".... tax revenues... Nirvana on the prairie.  The oil is planned to be shipped to a duty free zone - which means it is virtually guaranteed to be exported and no taxes accrue here.

Tell me again - how is it this is gonna be so great for the US?


And the much longer distances involved mean it is gonna take proportionally just that much more shipping fuel to get there.  Not to mention the extra pollution involved in doubling or tripling the extra shipping distance.  How clever of us.....

I’ve been thinking once I retire I might get current with my ASEL, get my commercial ticket, then get into flying pipeline inspections.

I hear 'second mortgage' coming.   :o

Hah hah!  Nah, I figured I’d find some generous pipeline company to provide that plane for me. 

When I was flying out of Chrisitansen they had a 172 which had been retired from pipeline duty, I don’t recall who the pipeline company who had owned it before was now.  It had something like 10,000 or 12,000 hours on it but it was clean and really well-maintained.  It had a cruise prop on it, and IIRC I think it would do 125-130 knots.  Not your run of the mill clapped-out 172 rental that would do 115 with a strong tailwind.  ;)

I’ve been thinking once I retire I might get current with my ASEL, get my commercial ticket, then get into flying pipeline inspections.

I hear 'second mortgage' coming.   :o

I wasn't talking about the plane necessarily, with as much as flight school costs now.   ;D

I wonder how much 10 hours of 172 block time is these days, wet, any idea?

Hah hah!  Nah, I figured I’d find some generous pipeline company to provide that plane for me. 

When I was flying out of Chrisitansen they had a 172 which had been retired from pipeline duty, I don’t recall who the pipeline company who had owned it before was now.  It had something like 10,000 or 12,000 hours on it but it was clean and really well-maintained.  It had a cruise prop on it, and IIRC I think it would do 125-130 knots.  Not your run of the mill clapped-out 172 rental that would do 115 with a strong tailwind.  ;)

Depending on who you listen to, the number of jobs the pipeline will create is between 35, and millions:

http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/1nxru1/pipe-friction

Since it has come up again... 35 is what the company says.  Tens of thousands is what the Murdochian Fantasy World lie machine is cranking out....

Whole pipeline from Canada to Coast, I could buy 10,000 under construction, that is if you count the same pipefitting crews multiple times as they move site-to-site.  Without new refining capacity at the Gulf, I’d agree, about 35 people to watch computer screens and go look at wildlife along the route.

Much of the pipeline now exists anyhow.  I think the only hold up was through Nebraska, where Uncle Warren who owns BNSF holds court, am I correct?

And Obama was in Cushing....Why....??

And it matters...why??

And it matters...why??

Company has said 2,500 to 3,800 for up to two years construction - this is a nebulous number, but pipelines don't take that many people to build.  Several hundred for another bit of time - maybe a year or so??  Then 35.

Trans-Alaska only took about 2 years for the main construction effort - did use "tens of thousands" - whatever that means - counting the truck drivers, waitresses, and people supporting them.... they had an exponentially more complex project and environment.  Let's not forget to count the people who sell the work clothes to the pipeline workers in Fairbanks.


If there were concerns about what is the most efficient way to move oil, it is to take it from Edmonton area, where all the shale oil is located, and just head straight west to Vancouver.  Many, many hundreds of miles closer to the shipping to take it to the Pacific rim, where it is headed anyway.  And proportionally, Canada would benefit by a greater percentage or per capita to adding 35 people to their employment rolls.  Oh, yeah...they aren't willing to risk the environmental consequences of a break/spill...!!!

Buffet has been benefiting from the train transport, but I would guarantee you that he is not betting his whole investment experience on that alone.  BNSF is huge outside of just oil

You tell me....

Exactly, it doesn't..aside from the TFRs, which happen anytime any President travels.

One of the few times I will agree with Heir, the Keystone’s economic benefit has been over-inflated by McConnell and his Ilk. 

I was impressed at first, then as industry execs distanced themselves from many of the wild claims, the Hannitys of the world kept on promoting hyperbole which simply does not add up in the real world.

Smoking by the gas pump, Cat diesel in a trike.  Think he’s Darwinned out yet?

TORONTO (AP) — The company behind the controversial Keystone XL pipeline from Canada to the U.S Gulf Coast has asked the U.S. State Department to pause its review of the project.

TransCanada said Monday a suspension would be appropriate while it works with Nebraska authorities for approval of its preferred route through the state. The move comes before the Obama administration was widely expected to reject it.

For seven years, the fate of the 1,179-mile (1,900 kilometer) long pipeline has languished amid debates over climate change, the intensive process of extracting Alberta's oil and U.S. energy security

The pipeline has long been a flashpoint in the U.S. debate over climate change. Critics oppose the concept of tapping the Alberta oil sands, saying it requires huge amounts of energy and water, increases greenhouse gas emissions.

The pipeline would have gone through North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas.

This whole thing has been a farce.

This was never really about the pipeline. 90% of the noise was just an excuse to bash Obama.

[I'm not in favor or strongly opposed to the project. But I'm happy to call out what I see as bull...]

Your eyesight is at least 20/20.

Probably better....

He goes here...

http://www.looktulsa.com

Conveniently located on Brookside.  Sorry for the shameless plug.

WASHINGTON — The White House on Tuesday said President Obama had no intention of bowing to a request from the company behind the Keystone XL oil pipeline to delay a decision on the project, saying he wanted to take action before his tenure ends...

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration rejected a Canadian energy giant's application to build the Keystone XL pipeline on Friday, three individuals familiar with the decision said, capping a seven-year saga that became an environmental flashpoint in Barack Obama's presidency.
Obama was to announce the decision at the White House after meeting with Secretary of State John Kerry. The individuals confirming Obama's decision weren't authorized to comment publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity.

Killing the pipeline allows Obama to claim aggressive action on the environment, potentially strengthening his hand as world leaders prepare to finalize major global climate pact within weeks that Obama hopes will be a crowning jewel for his legacy. Yet it also puts the president in a direct confrontation with Republicans and energy advocates that will almost surely spill over into the 2016 presidential election.

Although the project is dead for now, Obama's rejection will likely not be the last word for Keystone XL.

The pipeline's backers are expected to challenge his decision in court, and the Republican-controlled Congress may try to override the president, although those efforts have previously failed. The project could also get a fresh look in 2017 if a Republican wins the White House and invites TransCanada to reapply.

Another open question is whether TransCanada will try to recoup the more than $2 billion it says it has already spent on the project's development. Earlier in the year, the company left the door open to suing the U.S. government under NAFTA.

The 1,179-mile proposed pipeline has been in limbo for more than 7 years, awaiting a series of U.S. reviews that have dragged on more than 5 times longer than average, according to a recent Associated Press analysis. The pipeline requires a presidential permit to cross the U.S.-Canadian border.

Over time, the pipeline took on symbolic value of epic proportions, elevated by environmentalist and energy advocates alike into a proxy battle for climate change. Although Obama insisted both sides had overhyped the pipeline, his many delays only fueled the mushrooming political controversy.
Obama forecast his reluctance to authorize the pipeline on Wednesday when his administration rejected TransCanada's unusual request to suspend — but not withdraw — its application. The White House suggested the move was aimed at delaying until Obama leaves office and is potentially replaced by a Republican, although TransCanada insisted that wasn't the case.

TransCanada, an Alberta-based company with an expensive North American footprint, first applied for Keystone permits in September 2008 — shortly before Obama was elected. As envisioned, Keystone would snake from Canada's tar sands through Montana, South Dakota and Nebraska, then connect with existing pipelines to carry more than 800,000 barrels of crude oil a day to specialized refineries along the Texas Gulf Coast.

Democrats and environmental groups latched onto Keystone as emblematic of the type of dirty fossil fuels that must be phased out. Opponents chained themselves to construction equipment and the White House fence in protest, arguing that building the pipeline would be antithetical to Obama's call for cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

But Republicans, Canadian politicians and the energy industry touted what they said were profound economic benefits — thousands of U.S. construction jobs and billions injected into the economy. They argued transporting crude by pipeline would be safer than alternatives like rail, and charged Obama with hypocrisy for complaining about the lack of investment in U.S. infrastructure while obstructing an $8 billion project.

Amid vote after vote in Congress to try to force Obama's hand, the president seemed content to delay further and further into the future.

The first major delay came in 2011, when Obama postponed a decision until after his re-election. He cited opposition to the proposed route through
Nebraska's sensitive Sandhills region and said the U.S. would wait while the route was revised. When Congress passed legislation requiring a decision within 60 days, Obama rejected the application, but allowed TransCanada to re-apply.

In a major speech unveiling his climate change agenda in 2013, Obama established a litmus test for Keystone.

"Our national interest will be served only if this project does not significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution," Obama said at Georgetown University. Yet although a U.S.-commissioned environmental review found Keystone unlikely to exacerbate emissions, that assessment was based on outdated, higher oil prices, so environmentalists insisted it be redone.

The administration again delayed the decision — this time indefinitely — in April 2014, citing legal uncertainty in Nebraska. After seizing full control of Congress later that year, Republicans passed a bill forcing Keystone approval, which Obama rejected, wielding his veto pen for only the third time.

For TransCanada, the financial imperative to build Keystone may have fallen off recently amid a sharp drop in oil prices that could make extracting and transporting the product much less lucrative. But TransCanada's CEO has insisted that isn't the case. When the company first proposed Keystone in 2008, oil was suffering an even bigger plunge and the global economy was collapsing.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/energy/sources-obama-administration-nixes-keystone-xl-pipeline/article_5f239e53-2884-5649-93c3-9ed36ae0d034.html

He goes here...

http://www.looktulsa.com

Conveniently located on Brookside.  Sorry for the shameless plug.

Ok...so who is Look ??   I have been looking for an optical place - one lens still gives me 20/15, but one has slipped to 20/20, so need to get it fixed.  You saying they are good??

Quite good at making sure your prescription will work and he might even add some style to your life. 

He knows his stuff.

Same tactic:  Buy off the local law, have them brutalize landowners and the media.


Amy Goodman Is Facing Prison for Reporting on the Dakota Access Pipeline. That Should Scare Us All.
https://www.thenation.com/article/amy-goodman-is-facing-prison-for-reporting-on-the-dakota-access-pipeline-that-should-scare-us-all/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/georgianne-nienaber/first-amendment-and-sioux_b_12510004.html

Get off private property and then this scary. Until then. If these people were standing in my office "peacefully protesting" they still get arrested.

Yep. Here is the basic process:

Pipeline is planned.
Pipeline company sends out land men to acquire access rights.
Pipeline company requests state aid in eminent domain if there are holdouts (same as power companies, etc.)
Pipeline is proposed to state regulators, public comment, and approved.
Pipeline is proposed to Federal regulators (FERC and DOT), public comment, and approved.
Pipeline plans are proposed to the US Corps of Engineers, public comment,  and is approved.
Pipelines plans are proposed to the BLM, public comment, and is approved.
Overall, the pipeline goes through five levels of government regulation, and is approved.
Construction contracts are put for bid.
Construction timeline is published.
Construction begins at various locations.
Construction reaches this point...

WHAT A PIPELINE!  NO ONE TOLD US ANYTHING, THIS IS BS!!!!!!!1!1!1!! PROTEST!

It isn't tribal land.

By and large, it isn't the land owners protesting.

The land has never been claimed as sacred, or a burial site, or whatever else... until after all the above happened, and after the protests got attention. And these aren't burial sites, the claim is that a rock here or there represents a place where a tribal member may have been set upon a scaffold to return to the earth. Which no one knew about or held sacred until now. (happy to be corrected on tribal customs, I have to take this info from third parties)

This pipeline poses less of a hazard than the trains full of oil going by every day.

This pipeline isn't racist... most of the pipeline will go across the farmland of rural white farmers in Iowa.

The pipeline representatives tried to meet with the tribe, and were rejected because this isn't on tribal land (unless you are arguing, "it's all tribal land," which isn't the argument we are having right now).

The pipeline follows other pipelines and power line rights of way. This isn't virgin land. Its already been constructed upon.

If we are throwing out slanted website, you can find them going the other way too:
http://www.redstate.com/setonmotley/2016/10/05/much-dishonesty-way-late-dakota-access-pipeline/


So what? Go out there and protest. Get your 1st Amendment on! Unfortunately, the protesters have been knocking down fences and illegally entering sites. They have assaulted workers  (remember when peaceful protesters were attacked by dogs? Yeah, they had knocked down a fence and approached construction workers on private property - one side said the protesters then attacked, the other said the police attacked first). They have torched construction equipment - millions of dollars of construction (http://www.reuters.com/article/usa-pipeline-dakotaaccess-idUSL1N1CN11E) equipment. 

Protesting is all well and good. Ineffective at this stage. But have at it. However, when you engage in behavior designed to provoke a response, you can't be surprised when you get the response you are looking for.  Breaking down fences is going to get a police response. Torching equipment is going to get a police response. Otherwise, the authorities are letting the protesters be. Their illegal camp on federal land remains - because their right to peacefully assemble and protest is more important. This isn't Selma. Here, it seems the protesters only face hostility when they cross the line.

  one side said the protesters then attacked, the other said the police attacked first).

Sorry, complete squirrel hi-jack.  It made me wonder if it was Han or Greedo that shot first.

Frikken Han! Guido never even shot in the original. I can't believe they changed that scene.

Stupid George Lucas, choosing hundreds of millions of dollars and multi-generational fame over integrity!

Get off private property and then this scary. Until then. If these people were standing in my office "peacefully protesting" they still get arrested.

Ticketed for misdemeanor trespass....

As always, there is more to the story.  Private property rights in the area ARE affected not just by the 'mineral rights' of some, and the surface ownership, but also by Federal law by way of Treaties, which are by definition in the US Constitution, Supreme Law of the Land.  So there are interested parties outside of an oil company and 'landowner' who have legal standing.  These protesters are interested parties on behalf of the tribes.  The question of "trespass" becomes fuzzier....not much of a case there.

Sometimes a little bittersweet when a "protestor" is arrested for trespassing on property that belonged to their family for generations.   

Sick, twisted, immoral, thieving, cheating....these are words that describe it better...   

Keystone pipeline spills 210,000 gallons of oil on eve of permitting decision for TransCanada

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/11/16/keystone-pipeline-spills-210000-gallons-of-oil-on-eve-of-key-permitting-decision

No new permits or anything until this problem gets addressed.

So far, I haven't seen an article that talks about what caused the spill, how it was discovered, or if automatic mitigation systems worked.  I'm interested to hear why a new pipeline leaked.  Human error?  Construction issue? Damage?

Low bid construction.

The money is in cleanup.  Job Creators.

(http://www.theoilandgasyear.com/content/uploads/2015/03/PERU15_MD_BOX_PIPELINE-LEAKS--400x303.jpg)

And lack of DOT action to require real pipeline inspections from construction to de-commissioning.  The approach is "don't ask, don't tell..."   If they don't inspect, they can claim "they didn't know..."   But they do.  Proper inspection has been available for decades now.  Just not required as much as it should be.

At least according to the PMHSA, pipeline incidents are down by 20% since 2009.

https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/pipeline/inspections/inspections-overview

I'd say the idea proper inspections aren't taking place is bunk.  There is no benefit to companies paying out fines and costly emergency repairs in lieu of normal maintenance and routine repairs.  For the amount of product moved via pipeline vs. rail, truck, and water; pipelines still have a very good record per bbl moved.  They also help cut carbon emissions which otherwise would be necessary moving via rail, truck, or boat.