Obama holds on Keystone oil pipeline

[Tiggs]

Source: section 3.13 POTENTIAL RELEASES FROM PROJECT CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCE ANALYSIS, from the U.S. Department of State Final Environmental Impact statement..

It's quite a document, a decade in the making (or so.) The route and the procedures have been gone over and over with a bevy of fine-toothed combs.

Thank you. Now we're getting somewhere.

As far as I'm aware - this document was the last one issued from the EPA with regard to the document you've linked, which, as you can see, classifies it as Category 2-lnsufflicient Information.

If you have evidence of the EPA grading it as Category 1 - Adequate, then I'd love to see it.

The only reason to delay (or kill) this project is political, not environmental or safety-related.

Maybe. Maybe not.

The information for that particular section of the report was drafted by a company called Cardno Entrix.

Cardno Entrix were hired by the State Department via recommendation by TransCanada - the company responsible for creation of the Keystone XL Pipeline, and by complete coincidence - one of Cardno Entrix's major accounts..

There are points if you can see the rather immediate conflict of interest issues. Or a link to the New York Time's coverage of such, if you can't.

[Rafterman]

seems you're right. It was.

Let me play devils advocate here. How many oil spills have resulted from the Alaska pipeline? source now granted, Alaska has some unique problems, but running a pipeline like this thru the lower 48 will as well. Oil is nasty. And it is nasty to the environment. Was the Alaska pipeline worth it? I don't know. Maybe.

Reported oil spills Year No. of spills Amount spilled (bbl) 1977 34 1,932 1978 24 16,013 1979 43 5,566 1980 55 3,531 1981 32 1,508 1982 30 39 1983 17 4 1984 32 78 1985 31 27 1986 40 38 1987 37 4 1988 35 14 1989 26 251,712 1990 31 6 1991 54 11 1992 55 19 1993 65 8 1994 44 324 1995 6 2 1996 12 814 1997 5 2 1998 5 0.5 1999 8 0.39 2000 6 4 2001 15 6,857 2002 9 0.39 2003 3 0.31 2004 0 0 2005 0 0 2006 1 0.36

I think your numbers are a bit skewed. The 251,000 bbl figure you've bolded is, in fact, the Exxon Valdez spill. It had nothing to do with the pipeline itself.

According to your own source, the largest spill was 16,000 bbl in 1978, followed by 6,000 bbl in 2001. Both of these incidents were the result of sabotage - well, drunken rednecks more like it.

Considering that it has shipped 16 BILLION BBLs of oil in its 30+ year history, that's a pretty good track record.

[ninjadude]

I think your numbers are a bit skewed. The 251,000 bbl figure you've bolded is, in fact, the Exxon Valdez spill. It had nothing to do with the pipeline itself.

According to your own source, the largest spill was 16,000 bbl in 1978, followed by 6,000 bbl in 2001. Both of these incidents were the result of sabotage - well, drunken rednecks more like it.

Considering that it has shipped 16 BILLION BBLs of oil in its 30+ year history, that's a pretty good track record.

I just copied the WIki.

Each of those "spills" killed and destroyed areas of the environment. Oil is nasty. But yeah it may have been worth it.

[Harte]

Thank you. Now we're getting somewhere.

As far as I'm aware - this document was the last one issued from the EPA with regard to the document you've linked, which, as you can see, classifies it as Category 2-lnsufflicient Information.

If you have evidence of the EPA grading it as Category 1 - Adequate, then I'd love to see it.

The link I provided was to the final EIS. That paper post-dates your letter from the EPA.

I believe the final EIS, which (obviously, given it's date of a month after your letter) was already written when your letter was sent, addresses all problems the EPA laid out.

Note that the EPA's questions were about the draft EIS.

This pipeline is being held up for political reasons. If you can't see it, sorry, but the NY Times hasn't deigned to address it. Not surprisingly.

Harte

[Rafterman]

I just copied the WIki.

Each of those "spills" killed and destroyed areas of the environment. Oil is nasty. But yeah it may have been worth it.

Not necessarily - most of them were quite small and completely contained.

[+DieChecker]

The only reason to delay (or kill) this project is political, not environmental or safety-related.

I going to side with Harte. This is entirely political in action.

Probably Obama is holding it as one card of a hand he intends to use to get re-elected.

[Harte]

Assuming Canada doesn't switch to their western pipeline alternative, Obama will allow the thing to be built just as soon as he secures the election (assuming he does.)

Later on, he'll brag about doing it.

Harte

[Tiggs]

The link I provided was to the final EIS. That paper post-dates your letter from the EPA.

I believe the final EIS, which (obviously, given it's date of a month after your letter) was already written when your letter was sent, addresses all problems the EPA laid out.

Note that the EPA's questions were about the draft EIS.

This pipeline is being held up for political reasons. If you can't see it, sorry, but the NY Times hasn't deigned to address it. Not surprisingly.

Harte

As far as I'm aware - the EPA is yet to release it's comments on the final EIS. Hence why I'd be especially interested to see them, as I don't believe that the EPA has given it the all clear as Caesar previously claimed.

[Caesar]

I don't believe that the EPA has given it the all clear as Caesar previously claimed.

It wasn't the EPA that gave them the clear, it was the State DPT. since its not in the control of the EPA. I just got the two mixed up.

[ninjadude]

Not necessarily - most of them were quite small and completely contained.

think about that. It's comical.