Proposed Oil Pipeline from Canada
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2011-10-18/proposed-oil-pipeline-canada
Pros and cons of a proposed pipeline to bring crude oil from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico. Understanding the stakes for the environment, the U.S. economy and the White House.
Guests
Juliet Eilperin
environmental reporter, The Washington Post, and author of " Demon Fish: Travels Through the Hidden World of Sharks."
James Hansen
climate scientist; director, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies
Matthew Koch
vice president for Oil Sands and Arctic Issues at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Institute for 21st Century Energy
P.J. Crowley
former U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs; retired Air Force colonel; the General Omar N. Bradley Chair in Strategic Leadership at the Army War College, Dickinson College and the Penn State Dickinson School of Law; and a fellow at The George Washington University.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
I live in Nebraska. Farming and ranching is our livelihood, and because of us, we are able not only to provide food for our communities, but food for the United States and the world. The proposed oil pipeline would run right over the Ogallala Aquafer, a bloodline for not only us, but for everyone. With over a billion people worldwide who do not have access to clean drinking water, it makes no sense to put this vital water source in danger. This pipeline would not only threaten us, but everyone. Saying that there is a "low risk" of endangering our water resource is still a danger. Considering the history of oil spills, it's not a question of if it will happen, but WHEN it will happen.
What is the mechanism for the project obtaining rights to place an oil pipeline under the property of private landowners?
I would be outraged to find that, as a property owner, I was forced to accept a pipeline under my property against my will regardless of any monetary compensation.
Does the project use eminent domain to transfer property rights to the oil company?
I have heard that extract oil from the tar sands and move the oil takes a tremendous amount of fresh water. In an area scarce water supply, this doesn't seem like a viable way to produce oil. Please ask you guests to comment?
One of your guests just commented that Venezuela is dictatorial or unstable. In what way is this government either of these things? I've studied the Venezuelan revolution for years and I can tell you that it is neither of these things. These sort of b/s comments are always just glossed over on NPR and that is why I don't donate any money to public radio.
Seems to me there is opportunity here for compromise. Agree to approval of the pipeline with the caveat that there must be a habitat corridor created along with the pipeline, something environmentalists have long been proposing.
I have written the president, and signed an online petition to Sec. Clinton against the pipeline, what else can I do to keep the pipeline from becoming a reality? I just recently sold my car and bought a bike to do my part to go green.
THIS IS BLOOD OIL! If you asked someone if they wanted a blood diamond- a diamond mined on the backs of rape, pillage and plunder, most people would say no. This pipeline is to transport the dirtiest form of oil. It leaves a trail of environemntal destruction beginning the moment oil exploration begins. We need to stop chasing the last drop of oil at all costs. When you look at the BTU's coming out of it, there is no gain over what is put in to the extration and mining process. The oil is just given more value than the cost of energy and environmental destruction put into the mining, transport and refining.
What we need is a high-speed passenger rail system from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico and from the Atlantic ocean to the Pacific ocean.
Judge Grady's Verdict: The tar sands have done more in Canada to undermine democracy than to make the country prosperous. Because the process is dirtier than burning coal Canada has had to put the resultant CO2 emissions off the books, much like the costs of our occupational wars. Chomsky has accurately defined corporations as command economies and private tyrannies. Some of you may directly or indirectly possess some third rated stock in the Fortune 500 but you aren't the sort who even vote in a stockholders' meeting. Even if you did the choices are determined, the agenda is set in steel, the biases are mobilized and dissent is bullied or co-opted. Your minor players are marginalized. Some of our best intentioned and best informed citizens suffered arrest in front of the White House to stop this soot pipe to Asia. But look for the Obamanauts to approve it. We live not only in a corporate command economy but in a comandeered economy where our taxes and our daily bills are usurpted to make Oligarchs more powerful. Just look at Duke Energy demanding two rate hikes for a nuclear plant you will underwrite, insure and guarantee (profitable for investors) with deductions from and liabilities over your tiny income and retirement. Where is the public sphere? All that is left are the private tyrannies.
Grady Lee Howard wrote:
"Judge Grady's Verdict:"
Judge ecgbert's verdict, Grady Lee Coward still has not posted one shred of evidence that I have ever made any sort of racist statement, yet he called me a racist anyway and when challenged, doubled-down on the accusation. He has never had the cahones to confront me out in the open on this board and prove his accusation. Instead, he throws out his "verdicts" and then runs away like a little girl.
Then, Grady Lee Coward has the nerve to say the following:
"In my 1969 dictionary there is a picture of [Herman] Cain right beside the word Oreo. " So, Grady Lee Coward, who is the racist?
Why not think of this as a short term/long term issue: In the short run approve the pipeline to increase jobs BUT also simulaneously leglislate a tax on every gallon or cubic meter of dirty oil that passes through. Since the price of oil influences demand, this would change the cost benefit for consumers of this product.
How does the pipeline impact our domestic oil industry in North Dakota and the Baaken? Are those companies lobbying against this pipeline?
I HOPE that someone will make this comment: WE NEED MORE ENERGY IN THE NEAR FUTURE they say, to maintain American usage at the current levels ---
-->BUT shouldn't we be cutting back on how much we use?
Should we not be required to cut back? We Americans are energy hogs!
There is much that we can do to use less ---in which case our dependence on fossil fuel's energy KICK could be dramatically decreased --
American dryers? --> start with air dry
American refrigerators --> isn't there a better way to build them? draw on winter air in winter months?
hair dryers --> necessary?
etc
Thanks Diane! Love your show!
Wystan (wis-tan) Simons (sim-mons)
Mitchellville, MD
Fresh water is the Earth's most precious natural resource, not oil. When will everyone realize this?
Right now the USA gets almost all the tar sands oil through existing infrastructure. The primary purpose of this new venture is EXPORT.
Then the USA will be paying a higher price to remain Canada's biggest customer. So we as a public assume all the additional environmental risks
in order to supply off-shored production. Wowee.
Grady Lee Howard wrote:
"Right now the USA gets almost all the tar sands oil through existing infrastructure. The primary purpose of this new venture is EXPORT."
Bawk bawk-bawk-bawk b'bawk-bawk.
1992199319961998 wrote:
"Should we not be required to cut back? "
No. China may make such draconian edicts. North Korea may make such draconian edicts. Here, not so much.
Why can't the oil sands be transported to the Pacific coast and then shipped to refineries in the States? Wouldn't that avoid the eminent domain issues and possible spill/pipeline malfunction issues?
We have to remember that this resource originated in Canada. It is Canadian. Simple question: What is Canada's cut from the sales and profit of this oil? What will the US get?
I might be late to the convers but why not build a refinery just at our North border to accept oil from the pipline built only in Canada?
It could be then shipped by tanker truck or rail for US distribution, a cheaper and safer (?) way to get the oil?
I am suspicious, why doesn't Canada sell/ship this oil for her own full gain?
It is interesting how people don't see the obvious. This is all about helping China no the USA. These deals are made in back rooms by people we don't elect. It is just like Iraq, the USA spent trillions of dollars there, not to mention the lives of our best and future generation of young people, and the Chinese are over there making deals to get all the oil and any other riches they can get their hands on. Correct me if I am wrong but I don't think they ever had any troops there to help Iraq. They get the riches and we get the bills and the casualties.
Tell your elected officials you want more deals like this for the American people.
Your guest mentioned the precarious position that President Obama is in with whether to support this pipeline, due to all of his talk about JOBS. I cannot believe that people in this country cannot see the complexity of this issue and realize that it has more facets than just jobs! The BP Gulf spill really brought to light the many concerns that we should have about a major gasline running through our country. Our infrastructure isn't being kept up, we have issues with current gaslines. Our regulatory agencies are understaffed and have allowed the companies to regulate themselves. This is all not to mention the fact that we should be investing in clean, renewable energies for JOBS. Are we really expected to put our hands and trust in another gas company; to believe that they will protect the lands that this pipeline goes through, both on the surface and underground; that they will hire outside contractors who won't cheat on costs at the expense of our protection, that they will responsibly maintain the infrastructure, regardless of costs?
I don't think so.
I don't think it was mentioned but it appears the company that performed the pipeline evaluation had a vested interest in the result. This smells bad to me.
"The analysis itself, according to a New York Times article published yesterday, has been challenged as being wrought with conflicts of interest. Cardno Entrix, the contractor that developed the EIS through the State Department and TransCanada, which would develop the pipeline, reportedly has a financial stake in the project. The article reports that the company submitted a disclosure statement “acknowledging that it was paid $2.9 million to handle the environmental review of an earlier pipeline in the Keystone network.”"
I'm Democrat from Ma, now living in Fl. The discussion should include more representatives of society who would benefit from this pipeline. The Dr continues to repeat himself but without concrete ways today to provide jobs and meet the market needs. As I see it on a daily basis environmentalist who are gainfully employed are disconnected from so many who are less fortunate. While those same unfortunate people pay the price for the environmentalist projects, which come in the form of unfunded mandates from the Federal Government, or from applying their (environmentalist) power to derail job creating projects. I believe it is time to shut out environmentalist who repeat the same things over and over unless they can come up with Apples for Apples solutions that the rest of us can move and grow with. I do believe in environmentally responsible but too often environmentalist speak out in opposition to something without offering real world solutions.
Currently, virtually 100% of U.S. refining capacity resides on the coast of the Gulf of Mexico, where those plants are extremely vulnerable to our annual hurricanes. Whenever a hurricane threatens landfall near the refineries, those plants shut down long enough to make a dent in our economy. If a Category 5 hurricane were to make a direct strike on the refinery clusters, the economic impacts to the U.S. economy would be overwhelming.
If the Canadian tar sands are developed, the refinery should be built near the U.S.-Canadian border. This would likely also create even more jobs than would a trans-country pipeline, given the complexity of a refinery vs. a pipeline.
Did you know that Salt Lake City had a pipeline problem last year that received very little national attention but caused a great deal of local danger and discussion? A fifty year old Chevron oil pipeline that runs directly under the cities densest neighborhoods ruptured over a year ago... twice! The company spent millions cleaning it up, was fined for its poor safety record and it closed the City's largest public park for most of a year. It also spilled oil on a major creek that was the basis of a wildlife preserve. Michigan ISN'T the only place where a poorly regulated and unsafe oil pipeline has endangered the public.
In Tulsa area TransCananda is already trying eminent domain story by KOTV
Amy Lester, Oklahoma Impact Team
OKLAHOMA CITY -- On one side is the company, TransCanada. On the other, are landowners fighting to keep a pipeline off their property.
"It is ours. They didn't work and pay for this land. They don't have a right to bully their way across here and take whatever they want," said Sue Kelso, whose family is facing eminent domain court proceedings.
Kelso and her siblings don't want TransCanada's Keystone XL pipeline to go through their property. The pipeline expands one that currently ends in Cushing and takes it south to refineries in the Gulf Coast. It will travel through eight counties in Oklahoma. Kelso's family has other natural gas pipelines under the farm. But, she says this company was different.
"The very first meeting we had, we were told we would take it or they would condemn our property anyway," said Kelso.
Plus, Kelso worries about the safety of the line, possible contamination of the water supply, the environment and the type of oil that will flow through it.
This pipeline is yet another example of a long, dirty list of empty promises about the benefits of building such a pipeline. The environmental impact would be devastating. Just go look at the online videos of what this mess looks like at the sending end. A once beautiful, mountainous, and forested area is now a big, black hole. For what? More of the stuff we need to get away from. It's like the guy who knows he can quit smoking because he's done it dozens of times. When will we learn that it is time to look to the future and not over our shoulder. Obama needs to say NO to this monstrosity.
yes read the this story from KOTV
Amy Lester, Oklahoma Impact Team
OKLAHOMA CITY -- On one side is the company, TransCanada. On the other, are landowners fighting to keep a pipeline off their property.
"It is ours. They didn't work and pay for this land. They don't have a right to bully their way across here and take whatever they want," said Sue Kelso, whose family is facing eminent domain court proceedings.
Kelso and her siblings don't want TransCanada's Keystone XL pipeline to go through their property. The pipeline expands one that currently ends in Cushing and takes it south to refineries in the Gulf Coast. It will travel through eight counties in Oklahoma. Kelso's family has other natural gas pipelines under the farm. But, she says this company was different.
"The very first meeting we had, we were told we would take it or they would condemn our property anyway," said Kelso.
Plus, Kelso worries about the safety of the line, possible contamination of the water supply, the environment and the type of oil that will flow through it.
Once again environistas demonstrate that they couldn't find a clue if one walked up and bit them on the leg.
Canada will exploit the tar-sand oil, their budget depends on it. Haranguing the American government to deny the Keystone-XL pipeline will not stop it.
Canada will build a pipeline to take the tar-sand oil to market. The only question is the route. It can be built south to bring the oil to America, Canada’s preferred market. (I would prefer that it end in Chicago or Detroit, but the Canadian group thinks that market isn't big enough and wants to continue on to Houston and New Orleans.)
If he-who-must-not-be-named succumbs to the environista harangue and denies a southerly route the line will be built westerly to Vancouver B.C. where the oil will be loaded on Chinese tankers for shipment to China. Now, if you think the Exxon Valdez spill in Prince William Sound was bad, wait until we have a Chinese supertanker wreck in the Strait of Juan de Fuca. Or, how about a leak in the Canadian Rockies, somewhere around Banff, perhaps.
I say build it more or less as planned, but using double-walled pipe in critical areas. It's better for America, it's better for Canada, and it’s better for the world.