Publisher’s ink: More than oil spewing from Keystone pipeline decision
President Richard Nixon approved the construction of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline in 1973. It took a consortium of seven oil companies three years to build it. The pipeline accounts for approximately 15 percent of U.S. domestic oil production annually.
The Trans-Alaska Pipeline is 48 inches in diameter. It crosses three mountain ranges and more than 500 rivers and streams. It was the largest privately funded project at the time costing more than $8 billion. To date it’s moved well over 16 billion barrels of oil through a pipeline that includes four leak alert systems checking for pressure deviation, flow rate deviation, flow rate balance and line volume balance.
The pipeline traverses over three major Alaskan earthquake fault lines and as a testament to its engineering greatness it withstood a 7.9 magnitude earthquake in 2002.
Now with our country facing its worse unemployment condition in many decades, President Obama is holding up construction of what could be another critical national energy project. The TransCanada Corp.’s proposal to build the Keystone XL pipeline is more than just another pipeline in our existing network moving oil from its source to refineries in Texas and Louisiana. It’s an opportunity to reduce our demand on foreign oil, add real “shovel ready†jobs (unlike Solyndra) and increase our supply of oil for decades to come.
Some opposing the project on environmental grounds claim the Ogallala Aquifer flowing beneath Nebraska would be threatened in the event of an oil spill.
There are currently 17 major oil pipelines located in Nebraska with 21,000 miles of pipelines crisscrossing the state. Did anyone complain about those pipelines before Keystone XL came along? And speaking of pipelines, there are enough oil and gas pipelines in the United States to circle the earth 100 times. This additional trunk line is hardly any concern.
President Obama blames Congress for delaying Keystone XL on the grounds Republicans didn’t give his State Department enough time to study the issue. They’ve been studying it for three years. It was Obama’s decision to bargain with Congress that forced his hand. He agreed to extend the payroll tax reduction with the condition he render a decision on Keystone within 60 days. Not even waiting 60 days, he finds he doesn’t have the stomach to approve a project his liberal left base despises.
Let’s face it. This president is an ideologue who believes government planning is essential for all infrastructure projects. He’s playing politics on the backs of the jobless, dislikes oil despite the economic benefits it generates, and perpetuates his blame game with Republicans.
If Canada doesn’t sell their oil to America then they’ll sell it elsewhere — likely China. And to all you global warming fanatics; just do the math. Is it better to move oil through a pipeline from our friendly neighbor Canada or transport it from our friends in Venezuela and the Middle East in tankers?
Or perhaps there’s another alternative we’re missing. The State Department notes that with a modest expansion, railroads could move Canadian oil into the United States. Of course the major player here would be Warren Buffett’s Burlington Northern Santa Fe LLC railroad. How convenient is the Obama administration’s decision to reject the Keystone XL oil pipeline permit?
Just imagine all that dirty hot carbon Buffett’s train fleet would spew into the atmosphere. Almost as much hot air as Obama’s excuses for delaying the Keystone XL oil permit in the first place.
Richard Esposito is publisher of the Mountain Democrat.
Leave Comment
Discussion | 15 comments
The Mountain Democrat does not necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy
Warning: require(CLASS_RUN) [function.require]: failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /www/dev.mtdemocrat.com/html/wp-content/themes/broadsheet/ads-singleColumn.php on line 4
Fatal error: require() [function.require]: Failed opening required 'CLASS_RUN' (include_path='.:/usr/share/php:/usr/share/pear') in /www/dev.mtdemocrat.com/html/wp-content/themes/broadsheet/ads-singleColumn.php on line 4
Michael TarleckiJanuary 31, 2012 - 1:00 pm
If you look into TransCanada, (A Business Based in Canada, Hires Canadians who have a visa to work in the USA...oops did we miss that part?) we see that the whole company has only 4,000 people. SO WHERE ARE THE JOBS? Construction? Oh the guys that are already hired for a different part of the pipeline...they move them from one point to the other...this is about keeping them hired? 2nd.... The pipeline already goes to a port in Illinois along the Mississippi river. OVERSEAS ships cannot access that point. So why do they need to extend to Houston, TX? Because the OIL TANKERS dock there... This DIRTY oil that takes SPECIAL REFINERIES is already going to CHINA! 3rd... The Alaskan pipeline as of 2006 is now called "Ayeska pipeline" posted 5 Major spill reports where 1,222 gallons were released into the wildlife between 2006 to 2009 (3 yrs) but the DOT comes up with more spills along that line. Not sure why the difference. No wonder NEBRASKA has NOT issued a permit to go over the Ogallala Aquifer that sits under the whole state of Nebraska and supplies water to home in five states. Richard you have the right to your opinion...but not to your own FACTS even if you are the publisher.
Jack MartinJanuary 31, 2012 - 2:11 pm
Michael, your objections in some cases are not clear and in others, are specious. Allow me to illustrate. Point 1: TransCanada, as it exists today, employs 4,200 people to monitor/repair/whatever their existing lines. Keystone would add (in two phases) an additional 1,614 miles of pipeline. You don't suppose MORE people would needed to be added, permanently, to their staff to monitor/repair/whatever the additional lines? Point 2: Not sure where you were going with this. Not sure what point you were trying to make abou tthe Mississippi River ports and international cargo ships. Keystone is delivering Canadian tar sands crude oil to the refineries in Houston. Nothing in the company's website says otherwise. http://www.transcanada.com/keystone.html Point 3: You reported 5 spills over a span of 3 years totalling 1,222 gallons. (You didn't source it - but I'll let that pass for now) That amount, if correct, is not even statistically relevant. The average, household, in-ground swimming pool holds 10,000 gallons. You're talking about only 12% of that volume, spread over three years, across 1,800 miles of pipeline. It's irrelevant. And yet you trumpet this data as a reason for Nebraska to reject Keystone. Mr. Esposito's position on this thing is right on and your facts are either cloudy, or irrelevant.
Jack MartinFebruary 02, 2012 - 10:14 am
Geezzz, what a clumsy attempt at a diversion. I specifically redressed the points you made and you countered with a hypothetical tanker overturning, and some guy from Pennsylvania who lived not near a pipeline, but near a gas drilling/fracking/exploration region. I'm not saying the guy wasn't right, and not saying it should not be investigated, just saying it was irrelevant to this conversation. Just for fun, I did some math on your reported oil spill. The reported 1222 gallons over 1800 miles is .678 (about 2/3) gallon per mile, or about 0.016 ounces per foot, which is about 1/10th of what you can spit. And....you said this volume was was spread over three years' time. As I said before....Irrelevant.
ARNOLD LANGEJanuary 31, 2012 - 6:29 pm
geez, how many times do we have to hear the editorial staff of the MD use Keystone LIE platform to attack the President. You can almost see the venom dripping from Mr. Esposito. The attack dogs on the right continually use false data to support their claims. I have responded with FACTS (missing from Mr. Exposito's rant) previously and won't waste time again. There is a repetitive pattern to all this melarky and instinctively other's in the comment section etc. pile on. Esposito says nothing factual. He ignores the fact that the tar sands oil, THE ABSOLUTE DIRTIEST OIL TO PRODUCE AND REFINE ON THE PLANET is the worst to have leaking out of a pipe (Keystone has a history of leaking pipes). The jobs claim from keystone is bull. The column by Mr. Esposito is bull.
CatherineJanuary 31, 2012 - 6:55 pm
Mr. Esposito's column about getting his unibrow plucked was at least an effort at factual prose.
freeforallJanuary 31, 2012 - 8:24 pm
' It was Obama’s decision to bargain with Congress that forced his hand. He agreed to extend the payroll tax reduction with the condition he render a decision on Keystone within 60 days." I think he got it backwerds. It was the republicans who were doing the barganing by tying the pipeline deal to extending the payroll tax reduction. they were the ones forcing obamas hand and they blew it. now keystone is going to sell there oil to china
NonsenseFebruary 01, 2012 - 6:37 am
If it is about jobs, if it is about any and all energy sources as per the Prez himself, if it is about energy autonomy, then this should have been a done deal. Conveniently, the two people with the most to gain by not approving it are the two people with unlimited, unconditional access to the president, Buffett and Soros. Repeat after me, Manchurian. The unions should be bellowing from the roof tops, the press should be overplaying their hand, but you can almost hear the crickets other than a few "rogue" sources. The "official" position is to let this die a slow death. Nice energy plan.....
Jesus H ChristFebruary 01, 2012 - 11:37 am
Gee, if this oil is going to be used in the United States why not build a short pipeline to North Dakota? Oh, I see, the oil needs to go to Houston from where it can be shipped all over the world.
Jack MartinFebruary 01, 2012 - 12:08 pm
Excellent question. Tha answer is.....if you think it's tough to get a pipeline built in this country, just TRY getting permits to build a refinery. According to the US Energy Information Administration, we have not had a "significant" refinery built in the the US since 1977 (Garyville, LA). A few small ones (they label them "simple") have opened since then, but nothing to make a national impact.
Paul SmithFebruary 01, 2012 - 12:21 pm
Tesoro has a refinery in N. Dakota.
Jack MartinFebruary 01, 2012 - 12:41 pm
Really? It does not appear on the list of refineries compiled by the US Energy Info Admin..... http://38.96.246.204/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=29&t=6
Jack MartinFebruary 01, 2012 - 12:45 pm
You're correct. Mandan, ND, constructed in 1958, so I guess it's why it does not appear on the US EIA list I presented. But at 58, 000 barrels a day, it's actually quite small. http://www.tsocorp.com/TSOCorp/SocialResponsibility/Environment/MANDANREFINERYENVIRONMENTS
CatherineFebruary 01, 2012 - 1:55 pm
One would think Canadians might like to keep their own oil. http://resourceinsights.blogspot.com/2011/11/why-isnt-keystone-pipeline-extension.html
ARNOLD LANGEFebruary 01, 2012 - 6:41 pm
on the subject of refineries, many refineries have increased capacity. The oil companies have not built new ones because it is not cost effective. from a 2006 article... "...at a Senate hearing last year, BP’s chief executive officer explained that “[refinery] margins over the last 10 to 15 years have not been high enough on average to justify building a new refinery.†And in a recent closed-door briefing with congressional aides, an Exxon Mobil official said that company foresees no need to build new refineries at least through the year 2030." and "CEOs for BP, Shell and Conoco all testified to Congress last year (2005) that environmental requirements have not blocked a single planned refinery expansion. And, contrary to Joe Barton’s wild assertion, then-EPA administrator Carol Browner testified to Congress in 2000 that about half the permit modifications for refineries were issued within five months and that most of the others were issued within a year. That conclusion was bolstered by a new survey by state air pollution regulators, which concluded that environmental requirements have not delayed refinery expansion plans."
Jack MartinFebruary 02, 2012 - 10:18 am
INteresting you quoted from the article, yet declined to provide the source. Please do, as there are two points contained within the quote that run contrary to my memory of the entire refinery discussion. But I'd like to know the source before I bother to dig into it.