GOP House fights for the Canadian economy

[fskimospy]

I understand the purpose of the stimulus was a short term burst to the GDP. But my point to Uber was if temp jobs are such a big deal to him. Why doesnt he complain when other projects create temp jobs?

As for this project I agree with you. But it is a symptom of being in a democracy imo. Sides are digging in over ideological lines. Why one pipeline has taken this long to even be approved is just idiotic. The economic benefits are minimal yes. But that isn't a reason to shut the project down.

I agree, jobs are jobs.

I don't have strong feelings about it one way or the other, but I'm inclined to support it also based on my limited knowledge. It has gotten pretty annoying to see people talking about this project as some sort of jobs program though. It's a rounding error.

 

[desertdweller]

The following link lists pipeline leaks starting in the year 2000 all the way through 2015. No idea how complete this list is. I've copied and pasted only a few of the oil spills for just the first couple of years. Who knew that one little bullet hole could cause $13 million in damage...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...in_the_United_States_in_the_21st_century#2015

On February 5, 2000 a pipeline failed and spilled over 192,000 US gallons (730,000 L) of crude oil in the John Heinz National Wildlife Refuge in Pennsylvania. The source of the spill was a break in a miter bend in the pipe, which was estimated to be at least 50 years old.[9][10]

A pipeline released fuel oil at Chalk Point near Aquasco, Maryland, on April 7, 2000. The Piney Point Oil Pipeline system, which was owned by the Potomac Electric Power Company (Pepco), experienced a pipe failure at the Chalk Point Generating Station in southeastern Prince George's County, Maryland. The release was not discovered and addressed by the contract operating company, Support Terminal Services, Inc., until the late afternoon. Approximately 140,400 US gallons (531,000 L) of fuel oil were released into the surrounding wetlands and Swanson Creek and, subsequently, the Patuxent River as a result of the accident. No injuries were caused by the accident, which cost approximately $71 million for environmental response and clean-up operations.[12]

On October 4, 2001 a drunken man used a rifle to shoot a hole in the Alaskan Pipeline. More than 285,000 gallons of crude oil were spilled, costing more $13 million to clean up. The man was later convicted in Court.[45]

An Enbridge crude oil pipeline ruptured at a terminal in Douglas County, Wisconsin on January 24, 2002. Some of the crude oil flowed into the Nemadji River. Over 100,000 US gallons (380,000 L) were spilled.[31]

Forbes take on the cost of gasoline prices from XL pipeline.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timwors...xl-wont-lower-gas-prices-it-might-raise-them/


Seriously, there is no benefit to the United States from this pipeline and we, the U.S. tax payer, will be paying every time there is an environmental issue. It's not even a U.S. company that will be making the profit after we steal the land from American citizens and give it to a foreign company.

 

[Genx87]

I can think of a couple benefits. We wont be sending this crude oil via train or ship which can be dangerous.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lac-Mégantic_rail_disaster

Another while minimal is it does employ a small amount of people. The oil is going to be refined within this country. Why not make it easier and more cost efficient to get the oil to refinery?

This is an infrastructure project.

 

[cbrunny]

They have trains in Canada. They can transport it across their own lands.

Or they can allow that pipeline to be built. Across their own lands.

FWIW, Canadians don't want oil travelling on trains.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

FWIW, Canadians don't want oil travelling on trains.

Here's 47 reasons why.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lac-Mégantic_rail_disaster

 

[Bowfinger]

Here's 47 reasons why.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lac-M%C3%A9gantic_rail_disaster

Here are thousands of reasons why that reason is irrational: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pipeline_accidents

 

[rudeguy]

so we've moved from "This only helps the Canadian economy, it does nothing to help American" to "all pipelines are evil and its going to poison the water and kill gramma"?

Is it safe to say that we now know this will help the American economy?

 

[Mxylplyx]

It is quite obvious that the actual economic benefits of this pipeline are a sideshow at this point. Republicans want it simply because it is a battle they have waged with the Obama administration that they are determined to win. The economic benefits will be nothing more than noise in the total economic output and jobs picture. Personally, I think if the various jurisdictions the pipeline passes through can collect some decent revenues then they might as well approve it since the oil is being produced and shipped regardless. However, the fixation by the Republican party on this one little project, when there are so many more jobs that can be created via other infrastructure projects that are much more critical to this country, is just stupid. Republicans just want something to cry victory over. Simple as that.

 

[ivwshane]

so we've moved from "This only helps the Canadian economy, it does nothing to help American" to "all pipelines are evil and its going to poison the water and kill gramma"?

Is it safe to say that we now know this will help the American economy?

No, not in any measurable way.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Here are thousands of reasons why that reason is irrational: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pipeline_accidents

One might say that the failure to differentiate between oil vs. gas pipeline hazards is less than rational as well.

 

[cbrunny]

It'll help the Canadian economy in a huge way. Do it for us.

 

[Zaap]

so we've moved from "This only helps the Canadian economy, it does nothing to help American" to "all pipelines are evil and its going to poison the water and kill gramma"?

Pretty much. Whatever talking points their democrat puppet-masters hand them, the ususal sheep will regurgitate. A shame they can't somehow cast it as racist as well.

 

[fskimospy]

Is it safe to say that we now know this will help the American economy?

To be clear, the economic impact of this pipeline to the American economy is reasonably close to zero. It is a rounding error.

If you want to support the pipeline that's fine, but conservatives are trying to act like this is some great jobs program. It's not.

 

[Bowfinger]

One might say that the failure to differentiate between oil vs. gas pipeline hazards is less than rational as well.

You're arguing for the sake of arguing. Both pipelines and rail are subject to disasters. That one horrific rail accident you cite is not typical, nor does it negate the fact there have been countless pipeline accidents with a whole range of consequences. Any one incident, in and of itself, is meaningless. Any intelligent, informed discussion about risks would require a far, far more detailed analysis that considers mode of transportation, quantity of product, type of product, distance moved, location of population centers relative to transportation, number of incidents, impact of incidents, and no doubt a dozen other factors. I don't know the answer to risk vs. benefit, nor do I pretend to. Your cutesy link does nothing to actually inform this discussion.

 

[Bowfinger]

so we've moved from "This only helps the Canadian economy, it does nothing to help American" to "all pipelines are evil and its going to poison the water and kill gramma"?

Is it safe to say that we now know this will help the American economy?

By "we," you really mean you and those like you who cannot discuss Keystone on its merits and are now turning to a straw man to attack. Like almost everything else in this world, pipelines offer both benefits and risks. Intelligent people want to discuss and compare those benefits and risks to determine if a given project makes sense. Ideologues want to parrot talking points without any attempt to consider the facts.

 

[Bowfinger]

Pretty much. Whatever talking points their democrat puppet-masters hand them, the ususal sheep will regurgitate. A shame they can't somehow cast it as racist as well.

Damn! There goes another irony meter. Pieces everywhere.

 

[Genx87]

You're arguing for the sake of arguing. Both pipelines and rail are subject to disasters. That one horrific rail accident you cite is not typical, nor does it negate the fact there have been countless pipeline accidents with a whole range of consequences. Any one incident, in and of itself, is meaningless. Any intelligent, informed discussion about risks would require a far, far more detailed analysis that considers mode of transportation, quantity of product, type of product, distance moved, location of population centers relative to transportation, number of incidents, impact of incidents, and no doubt a dozen other factors. I don't know the answer to risk vs. benefit, nor do I pretend to. Your cutesy link does nothing to actually inform this discussion.

2013 was a tough year for getting oil out of ND via rail.

http://www.startribune.com/local/238207831.html

 

[K1052]

I think some confusion is occurring over what the pipe will actually carry, it isn't ordinary crude but a diluted (with volatile chemicals) bitumen. If a rupture happens the chemicals evaporate off and the bitumen sinks in the water which makes cleanup a total environmental nightmare or basically impossible.

In light of the ongoing and extremely costly cleanup (over 1B and counting) of the Enbridge diluted bitumen spill into the Kalamazoo river I think allowing mass transport of it via pipeline is a dicey proposition at best. I don't really see why the US should shoulder the environmental risk when Canada has perfectly good coastlines they can ship the dilbit to...though that enters the sticky proposition that a lot of people up there don't want the coming through either.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

You're arguing for the sake of arguing. Both pipelines and rail are subject to disasters. That one horrific rail accident you cite is not typical, nor does it negate the fact there have been countless pipeline accidents with a whole range of consequences. Any one incident, in and of itself, is meaningless. Any intelligent, informed discussion about risks would require a far, far more detailed analysis that considers mode of transportation, quantity of product, type of product, distance moved, location of population centers relative to transportation, number of incidents, impact of incidents, and no doubt a dozen other factors. I don't know the answer to risk vs. benefit, nor do I pretend to. Your cutesy link does nothing to actually inform this discussion.

I'm not arguing for the sake of arguing, I was being factual as most all of those disasters your link cited involved gas pipelines, not oil. I thought this was an important point to note for those among us who prefer to be informed and not so easily misled by "Your cutesy link does nothing to actually inform this discussion". Oh, the irony.

In addition, do you really think you're contributing to informed discussion on this topic by questioning my rationality out-of-the-gate for merely alluding to a recent horrific disaster that significantly reinforced the negative perception that many have of using rail to transport oil? More irony. You sir, are a piece of work imo.

 

[VRAMdemon]

How come no one mentions the hundreds, possibly thousands of jobs that will be created cleaning up the inevitable spills, leaks or other catastrophes that will be the result of using the cheapest foreign materials and construction techniques possible? Or the jobs remediating the ruined aquifers? How about all the jobs for healthcare professionals and morticians to take care of the many victims of the greatly increased toxic environment. Death is big business!

On the other hand, we might lose 1,000,000 Nebraska residents, who live in agricultural/ranching areas heavily dependent on the Ogallala Aquifer. Once polluted with Keystone oil (a very real possibility anywhere near the Sandhills region), most of the state will become useless scrub land.

Currently, trains are used to transport the unrefined product to the refineries in the US. If there is a pipeline, many jobs in the railway transportation will be lost as there will be a substantial dip in the amount of product moved by rail. NONE of this is about jobs. It's about making transport cheaper.

 

[MixMasterTang]

Except the thousands of jobs it would create and the stability to the energy supply.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspi...tone-pipeline-would-create-thousands-of-jobs/


And yes I trust Forbes over Maddow.

I find it hilarious that you're attempting to use this article to prove your point since it is completely biased (and an opinion piece, not actual forbes news).

Albert Huber is the president of Patterson Pump Company. Peter Bowe is the president of Ellicott Dredges, LLC. Both companies would stand to benefit economically if the Keystone XL pipeline were built.

 

[Spungo]

Canada will sell the oil regardless. Claiming the Keystone pipeline is “fighting for the Canadian economy" is clearly partisan bullshit.

You mean the Canadians could sell it to China instead? I wasn't aware oil could be transported over water. It would require some kind of ship or something. A ship with a tank. A tank full of oil.

I'm against pipelines from Canada because I think we should buy our oil from Saudi Arabia. Remember that time a bunch of Canadians flew jets into the world trade center? Screw Canada.

 

[Spungo]

And all this time I thought they were one of our closest allies. Silly me.

You're thinking of the Saudis. Saudi Arabia is our closest ally. Canada is pretty much our enemy. They behead people like the Islamic State does, and Osama Bin Laden was born in Canada.

If you want to support the pipeline that's fine, but conservatives are trying to act like this is some great jobs program. It's not.

Basically. The whole point of creating pipes for oil, water, and sewage is to reduce the amount of jobs required to get something done. If we just wanted to create jobs, we would rip up all of our water pipes and use trucks to transport water.

 

[werepossum]

You mean the Canadians could sell it to China instead? I wasn't aware oil could be transported over water. It would require some kind of ship or something. A ship with a tank. A tank full of oil.

I'm against pipelines from Canada because I think we should buy our oil from Saudi Arabia. Remember that time a bunch of Canadians flew jets into the world trade center? Screw Canada.

lol +1

Suppose there's another boycott from the Islamic oil-producing nations. Sure would be nice for America to have that Canadian oil running to American refineries rather than to Canadian ports.

 

[Bowfinger]

How come no one mentions the hundreds, possibly thousands of jobs that will be created cleaning up the inevitable spills, leaks or other catastrophes that will be the result of using the cheapest foreign materials and construction techniques possible? Or the jobs remediating the ruined aquifers? How about all the jobs for healthcare professionals and morticians to take care of the many victims of the greatly increased toxic environment. Death is big business!

On the other hand, we might lose 1,000,000 Nebraska residents, who live in agricultural/ranching areas heavily dependent on the Ogallala Aquifer. Once polluted with Keystone oil (a very real possibility anywhere near the Sandhills region), most of the state will become useless scrub land.

Currently, trains are used to transport the unrefined product to the refineries in the US. If there is a pipeline, many jobs in the railway transportation will be lost as there will be a substantial dip in the amount of product moved by rail. NONE of this is about jobs. It's about making transport cheaper.

That's an interesting thought. I wonder if Keystone would materially affect the rail industry. If so, has anyone quantified this in dollars and jobs. It's certainly another factor to consider if one wants to make an intelligent, informed decision about the merits of Keystone.