Obama nixes Keystone XL Pipeline permit.

• BGFalcons82

  

  Skyhook79;1060906 wrote:I don't think they mind too much since they are a few other pipelines.

  But wait, skyhook. Aren't all of those pipelines leaking now and should all be shut down immediately?
• KnightRyder

  

  jmog;1060245 wrote:So what left wing environmental nut job website did you copy/paste this from?
  
  Having physically been to the oil sands sites in Canada and worked on fuel delivery systems as a chemical combustion research engineer, I can tell yout hat you are wrong. So wrong that is itsn't even funny.
  
  Is it hotter and pumped at a higher pressure? Yes.
  Is it so much hotter and higher pressure that current standards for piping won't work? No.
  
  Heck, we already do this in California, the same type of oil is in the San Juaquin valley, the same type of extraction (high pressure steam pumped into the ground to loosen up/heat up the oil to make it pumpable).
  
  How did we EVER manage to get the oil out of california?
  
  This is the kind of crap that pisses me off, as someone who has worked in combustion/fuel research for about a decade to watch some blog site that has no basis in science or reality be quoted as fact.

  why didnt mention the San Joaquin pipe line ruptured in 1993 spilling 6200 barrels of crude into a freshwater stream?
• fan_from_texas

  KnightRyder;1060969 wrote:why didnt mention the San Joaquin pipe line ruptured in 1993 spilling 6200 barrels of crude into a freshwater stream?

  There are, of course, risks with any energy technology. I don't see anyone disputing that. The question isn't whether risks exist, but whether and to what extent those risks make a project a bad idea.
• HitsRus

  

  why didnt mention the San Joaquin pipe line ruptured in 1993 spilling 6200 barrels of crude into a freshwater stream?

  Did you read anything that I posted? (specifically post #21 and 25) The pipeline is to be built and serviced above existing regulations. Certainly there is more environmental risk shipping the oil to Asian markets for refining and then having it shipped back over here for our use.
• jmog

  KnightRyder;1060290 wrote:i too work in the oil industry, and no i'm not a chemical combustion research engineer. i'm the guy that has to clean up the mess that chemical combustion research engineers create with their stupid decisions that only work on paper or in some lab. get out in the real world and get your hands dirty. then maybe you could see what works and what doesnt. till then bag it.

  You don't know crap about me.
  
  I typically am in the field doing actual field engineering 20-30% of every year. I have got "my hands dirty" quite a few times.
  
  I take my projects from theory to execution to commissioning in the field.
  
  If this type of oil is so freaking hard to pipe, please explain how we are ALREADY piping it out of the San Juaquin valley in California already? I have been to that desert a few times working on the steam generators that pump steam down in the ground. There are literally 100s of them stretched from Bakersfield to Fresno. Somehow they manage to get that same type of oil out of California every day without creating global catastrophes.
  
  So, since you are so well knowing, tell me how it works just fine in California (a highly liberal/EPA controlled state) but we can't pump the stuff from Canada?
  
  It's political bull**** is what it is.
• jmog

  KnightRyder;1060969 wrote:why didnt mention the San Joaquin pipe line ruptured in 1993 spilling 6200 barrels of crude into a freshwater stream?

  I think you would have a hard time finding a pipeline that has never leaked, especially those that have been in operation for decades.
• KnightRyder

  

  jmog;1061010 wrote:You don't know crap about me.
  
  I typically am in the field doing actual field engineering 20-30% of every year. I have got "my hands dirty" quite a few times.
  
  I take my projects from theory to execution to commissioning in the field.
  
  If this type of oil is so freaking hard to pipe, please explain how we are ALREADY piping it out of the San Juaquin valley in California already? I have been to that desert a few times working on the steam generators that pump steam down in the ground. There are literally 100s of them stretched from Bakersfield to Fresno. Somehow they manage to get that same type of oil out of California every day without creating global catastrophes.
  
  So, since you are so well knowing, tell me how it works just fine in California (a highly liberal/EPA controlled state) but we can't pump the stuff from Canada?
  
  It's political bull**** is what it is.

  yea it works so well it leaks. maybe because of shoddy design. i imagine that could be possible. furthermore i doubt you are involved in anything in the oil industry. you dont even know how to spell the name of the pipeline in question. . its San Joaquin valley not San Juaquin valley. That shows me a little on your knowledge of the industry. the first time the supposed keystone pipeline sprang a leak . i could see you and all the other conservative douche bags criticizing obama for that decision. he made the right call , like it or not.
• jmog

  KnightRyder;1061058 wrote:yea it works so well it leaks. maybe because of shoddy design. i imagine that could be possible. furthermore i doubt you are involved in anything in the oil industry. you dont even know how to spell the name of the pipeline in question. . its San Joaquin valley not San Juaquin valley. That shows me a little on your knowledge of the industry. the first time the supposed keystone pipeline sprang a leak . i could see you and all the other conservative douche bags criticizing obama for that decision. he made the right call , like it or not.

  I have physically been in that desert half a dozen times, a typo doesn't make one retarded. Chevron, being one of the big players out there, has almost 200 steam generators (I think final count was 162 maybe?) all with North American Mfg Ultra-Low NOx Magna-Flame GLE burners on them.
  
  And no, that wasn't a typo, if you google that burner you will not see the GLE version in the literature, only the LE and LEx versions (there is also an LEr and GLZ version in research). I worked in the research and development of that sub 12 ppm NOx burner technology and since had worked on a sub 8 ppm version as well.
  
  So, want to keep on talking? I have also worked on many research projects for refineries, one in particular was Tesoro in Mandan, North Dakota. I was also in Fort McMurray Canada where a ton of this type of oil is coming from.
• Skyhook79

  

  KnightRyder;1061058 wrote:yea it works so well it leaks. maybe because of shoddy design. i imagine that could be possible. furthermore i doubt you are involved in anything in the oil industry. you dont even know how to spell the name of the pipeline in question. . its San Joaquin valley not San Juaquin valley. That shows me a little on your knowledge of the industry. the first time the supposed keystone pipeline sprang a leak . i could see you and all the other conservative douche bags criticizing obama for that decision. he made the right call , like it or not.

  
  http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/yea.html
  
  I'm sure it was just a typo.
  
  Also I could be wrong but I think each new sentence should start with a capital letter. Of course "I" should always be capitalized.
• stlouiedipalma

  HitsRus;1060890 wrote:This is an irrelevant question since this has not been really fast tracked. The permit was applied for in 2008 and due diligence has been done. The State department has itself stated in a brief on 8/26/2011 that the determination would be done by the end of the year 2011. What has happened is that the Obama administration has DELAYED AND STALLED and tried to push back the decision until after THE ELECTION...a strictly political move so as not to piss off his base which includes the anti oil crowd...environmental extremists...man made climate change people etc. I believe Obama will approve it (if re-elected)...he just doesn't want to do it now.
  The Republicans are , of course, holding his feet to the fire...certainly political....but they are right to do it, as to delay its construction 'is not in the country's interest', no matter what the administration says.
  
  The country is struggling to get the economy going, and this huge construction project will provide jobs. Whether it is as many as oil industry analysts say, or as paltry as pipeline opponents say is irrelevant also, because by anybody's estimate it will create several thousand jobs, as well as several thousand more 'spinoff' jobs...all of which America's needs to get the ball rolling again so to speak. The claim by opponents that these jobs are 'temporary' is is political spin also, as ALL construction jobs are temporary. That does not mean they are less desirable. The project is a large investment($7 billion) in permanent infrastructure...a very nice injection into our economy when you consider the multiplier effect.
  
  
  
  
  This is not about energy independence as much as it is about energy security. This is oil that will be sent to and refined here in this country(permanently)...from a friendly and stable source. In the event of an oil disruption in the middle east...the oil necessary to keep us running is here, in American markets, as opposed to having to go to Asia to bring it back. Moreover, the timing of this is important too. Canada is not going to sit on this oil waiting for us to act on the if/come. They have money invested and they are going to move the stuff. Make no mistake, China, India and other Asian players are moving quickly to secure their sources of oil for their burgeoning economies. While there is still plenty of oil, there is no question that the gap between demand and available supply will diminish considerably over the next 20 years, and being proactive in this regard is crucial as we attempt to transition to other sources.
  
  I am not an Obama guy to begin with, but this is one reason that he must be defeated . Everybody plays politics, but to do so against the national interest is a cardinal sin and should not be tolerated. This is a 'shovel ready' project if there ever was one...and it won't cost Treasury a dime. The administration needs to stop shoveling on this one.

  
  But how much of this stuff, once refined, will stay in the USA? Will any of it stay, or is it designated for shipment overseas?
  
  You never answered my question about Boehner and his associates. Regardless of how long this has taken, how much money has found its way to their coffers from oil and oil-related businesses?
• fan_from_texas

  stlouiedipalma;1061164 wrote:But how much of this stuff, once refined, will stay in the USA? Will any of it stay, or is it designated for shipment overseas?

  
  It's unclear, and there's no way to know. Oil is a global commodity, so I'm not sure that it matters much.
• HitsRus

  

  . Regardless of how long this has taken, how much money has found its way to their coffers from oil and oil-related businesses?

  If you want to research that, be my guest, but be sure to include the $$$ going the other way from enviro-groups. That's the way things work in Washington with lobbyists. It does not appear that Obama is going to get a lot of money from the Laborer's Union who is spitting mad and dealing with 16% unemployment in their ranks. They vowed not to forget BHO's "betrayal".
  http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/job-killers-2-american-workers-0-137592088.html
  

  But how much of this stuff, once refined, will stay in the USA? Will any of it stay, or is it designated for shipment overseas?

  The oil will be sold where the oil will be sold....but in the event of a disruption of supplies elsewhere...the oil from Canada will be coming here first. Again, this is about security.
  
• KnightRyder

  

  jmog;1061083 wrote:I have physically been in that desert half a dozen times, a typo doesn't make one retarded. Chevron, being one of the big players out there, has almost 200 steam generators (I think final count was 162 maybe?) all with North American Mfg Ultra-Low NOx Magna-Flame GLE burners on them.
  
  And no, that wasn't a typo, if you google that burner you will not see the GLE version in the literature, only the LE and LEx versions (there is also an LEr and GLZ version in research). I worked in the research and development of that sub 12 ppm NOx burner technology and since had worked on a sub 8 ppm version as well.
  
  So, want to keep on talking? I have also worked on many research projects for refineries, one in particular was Tesoro in Mandan, North Dakota. I was also in Fort McMurray Canada where a ton of this type of oil is coming from.

  then you would know that running a pipeline thru the largest aquifer in the U.S. is a bad idea . like you said they all leak. and you would also know that it would be built of of material that would be below specs.
• I Wear Pants

  I don't really care whether it's used here or sold. As long as precautions are taken and things are done safely I have no problem with that sort of thing. (Assuming land isn't being annexed or something for this).
  
  Same thing I have with fracking. As long as they do it right (IE the casing being done right and tested well as well as careful monitoring) then there aren't a whole lot of reasons not to do it.
  
  TL;DR: Take precautions when starting/building these things and monitor them closely to minimalize the risk of bad things happening and there aren't many reasons not to do them.
• believer

  

  fan_from_texas;1061172 wrote:It's unclear, and there's no way to know. Oil is a global commodity, so I'm not sure that it matters much.

  It doesn't. It only means more American jobs and access to a friendly source of foreign oil.
  
  That being said this should have been an easy economic no-brainer for the Appointed One. But since when has he demonstrated any common sense since taking office?
• HitsRus

  

  Republicans are not taking 'no' for an answer.
  
  http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/01/gop-plots-path-around-president-on-keystone-pipeline/
• KnightRyder

  

  believer;1061235 wrote:It doesn't. It only means more American jobs and access to a friendly source of foreign oil.
  
  That being said this should have been an easy economic no-brainer for the Appointed One. But since when has he demonstrated any common sense since taking office?

  and more jobs to clean up the mess when it ruptures
• j_crazy

  

  KnightRyder;1060969 wrote:why didnt mention the San Joaquin pipe line ruptured in 1993 spilling 6200 barrels of crude into a freshwater stream?

  
  Care to look up the daily throughput of that pipeline? 6200 bbls seems like a leak that lasted 4 hrs. Meaning that line probably transports 20000 bbls per day.
• believer

  

  KnightRyder;1061523 wrote:and more jobs to clean up the mess when it ruptures

  And more Big Gubmint checks to distribute when the unemployment rate ruptures.
• HitsRus

  

  ...and they should continue to hammer home runs. John Boehner has stated that all options are on the table with Keystone, and if necessary, they will attach its approval to the payroll tax cut extension.
• IggyPride00

  

  HitsRus;1061652 wrote:...and they should continue to hammer home runs. John Boehner has stated that all options are on the table with Keystone, and if necessary, they will attach its approval to the payroll tax cut extension.

  It sounds good in theory, but if people start losing more out of their paychecks because the Congress doesn't extend the payroll tax-cut, they aren't going to care about the pipeline. They are just going to want Congress to finish the extension.
  
  The Republicans took a beating over the last payroll debate, which is why they finally gave in on the 2 month extension.
  
  Trying to use the pipeline as a hostage again just plays into the President's hands.
  
  People don't care enough about the pipeline that they are willing to see their paychecks go down to fight for it.
  
  That is the political reality.
• jmog

  KnightRyder;1061227 wrote:then you would know that running a pipeline thru the largest aquifer in the U.S. is a bad idea . like you said they all leak. and you would also know that it would be built of of material that would be below specs.

  Not true at all, but you can continue with untruths on the board to push your point if you like.
• jmog

  j_crazy;1061526 wrote:Care to look up the daily throughput of that pipeline? 6200 bbls seems like a leak that lasted 4 hrs. Meaning that line probably transports 20000 bbls per day.

  Please don't let facts get in the way of KRs opinions.
• IggyPride00

  

  ccrunner609;1062375 wrote:Pubs are going to tie future payroll tax cuts to the pipeline to try to force Obamas hand since the only way he has a chance to get re-elected is to buy them with a payroll tax cut.

  Obama will then go on and on about how 160 million americans saw their taxes increase because Pubs are beholden to big oil.
  
  Politically he has the upper hand, because people don't care enough about it to lose their tax cut over. That is a political death trap for the Republicans.
• fish82

  

  The part that makes me chuckle is how widespread the ignorance is that it's even a "tax cut."