Skip to main content

View Diary: Video, Photos: 12,000+ People Surround White House Demanding a Stop to Dirty Tar Sands Pipeline (186 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I disagree (0+ / 0-)

    I have studied many pipelines and their construction typically creates thousands of jobs.  Lots of unemployed folks in the Midwest could use the work even if the job is only for a year or two.

    I doubt the conclusions of the Cornell study, because increasing the supply of oil in the US is more likely to lower, not increase, the price of gasoline.

    The pipeline will also support jobs at refineries on the Gulf Coast and elsewhere by providing feedstock.

    I also demur from linking carbon emissions to the pipeline. The vast majority of carbon emissions come from the oil production process, not from the pipeline itself.

    If you defeat the pipeline, the oil production will probably not even pause and carbon emissions will continue unabated.

    •  No, the "vast majority of carbon emissions" (16+ / 0-)

      come from burning this crap, not from "the production process." Which is why stopping the Keystone pipeline is necessary, because it will slow down the rush to consume this crap and spew millions of tons of carbon emissions into the atmosphere.

    •  You clearly don't know much about the subject. (23+ / 0-)

      Tar sands presently goes through the Keystone (not XL) pipeline to the midwest. It's also shipped there for refining.

      Piping tar sands to Texas refineries will reduce the supply of oil in the midwest, raising prices.

      Texas refineries will ship diesel fuel and petrol to Europe, the Caribbean, central America....and to Texas.

      Because tar sands mining is so destructive to the air, land and water, pretty much any thing that slows it down is a good thing.

      look for my eSci diary series Thursday evening. "Forgive them; for they know not what they do."

      by FishOutofWater on Sun Nov 06, 2011 at 05:31:18 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I doubt it (0+ / 0-)

        Just because Canada can sell oil to Texas, it doesn't necessarily follow they will stop selling, or sell less oil to the Midwest.

        The Canadian oil from the XL will feed refineries in at least Texas, Oklahoma, and Louisiana, not just Texas.

        With record fuel prices in the USA, why would Gulf refineries spend shipping costs to send their product overseas?

        We are going to be "burning crap" in our cars, whether or not it comes from Canada or Iraq. Stopping the pipeline does not stop us from burning crap in our cars.

        I don't believe the tailpipe emissions from a car burning gas made from Canadian oil are much different that from burning Middle East-sourced gasoline.

        •  Most will be exported overseas Industry documents (9+ / 0-)

          show.

          You're trying to blow smoke up our ass.

          Gasoline made from the tar sands gives a Toyota Prius the same impact on climate as a Hummer using gasoline made from oil. ~ Al Gore

          by Lefty Coaster on Sun Nov 06, 2011 at 06:31:32 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Actually (0+ / 0-)

            I am dismayed by the whole XL pipeline/canadian oil situation. Tar Sands oil production methods appall me

            If you want to actually stop or slow Tar Sands oil production, you'd better figure out something to do in Canada, where it takes place.

            USA's hunger for oil continues unaddressed so oil will get produced somewhere, if not Canada. I doubt if Nigeria, which sold 40% of its oil to the USA, utilizes much better methods.

            Or tar sands oil will just get shipped here by truck or rail tanker cars, rather than by pipeline.

            I'm just tired of folks blaming the pipeline for 100% of the tar sands production impacts--Those impacts will continue with or without the pipeline, and tar sands oil will get burnt in China if not in Texas.

            I always liked the Nebraska sand hills and would hate to see a spill out there, I'm not overjoyed the EIS didn't provide alternative pipeline routes either.

            •  First nation reserves on proposed Pacific routes (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              greengemini

              have stated categorically that they won't allow any pipelines on their lands. Yes they can ship by rail and probably in high enough volumes to make the Keystone XL pipeline superfluous according to one study I read.

              You write you've studied pipeline construction. Do you work in the industry?  

              Gasoline made from the tar sands gives a Toyota Prius the same impact on climate as a Hummer using gasoline made from oil. ~ Al Gore

              by Lefty Coaster on Sun Nov 06, 2011 at 07:36:09 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  not exactly (0+ / 0-)

                But I have friends who build pipelines with tools. They are mostly out of work. I have one buddy, the only time he worked during all of 2010-2011 was on the Ruby Pipeline.

                That is why I am conflicted on XL. I don't love tar sands but I sure want 20,000 folks to get jobs for a year or so, especially in Montana where  times are rough.

                I hate to see equipment for the Tar Sands fabricated in China and shipped right thru the Northwest. It should have been built in the USA instead.  I supported the folks who wanted to stop those shipments for that reason.

                •  you sure do mention 20,000 a lot (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  cybrestrike, Matt Z, AllisonInSeattle

                  but provide no evidence to back up that claim.

                  big badda boom : GRB 080913

                  by squarewheel on Sun Nov 06, 2011 at 09:32:05 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  published accounts (0+ / 0-)

                    I am repeating the 20,000 figure from various newspaper articles. The number seems a little high, but 1700 miles of 36-inch line, along with several pumping stations, could generate that much work.

                    There will be truck drivers, work in fabrication shops, equipment operators, welders, laborers, surveyors, and so on.

                    I am not happy to read that the steel pipe may be imported, and I don't care for TransCanada, who is no friend of workers.

                    But half of the unemployed have been out of work so long they don't even get unemployment anymore, and I know some of them who would get work on the pipeline.

                •  first of all, it is NOT 20,000 jobs. Please (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  angstall, Matt Z

                  take the time to do some actual reading.  There are lots of comments in this very diary which provide evidence that the 20,000 is basically a fictional number.

                  Second, Just like horse-buggy drivers needed to consider career alternatives... your pipeline-building friends could consider transferring their skills to build things that are not environmentally destructive...  There are even organizations dedicated to helping such people make such transitions.

                  Here is a good place they could start: http://www.usw.org/...

                  "The death penalty is never about the criminal. They've already done their worst. The question is always "will we join them"?" - jlynne

                  by Hopeful Skeptic on Sun Nov 06, 2011 at 09:56:59 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  forgot part of my sentence... (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    angstall, Matt Z
                    Just like horse-buggy drivers needed to consider career alternatives when cars were invented...

                    "The death penalty is never about the criminal. They've already done their worst. The question is always "will we join them"?" - jlynne

                    by Hopeful Skeptic on Sun Nov 06, 2011 at 09:58:12 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  I did (0+ / 0-)

                    read the diary, and what I saw, were assertions that the 20,000 jobs would be counterbalanced by other lost jobs in the future because the pipeline would cause higher gas prices in the Midwest.

                    I don't remember seeing anyone who claimed that pipeline construction wouldn't put thousands of people to work.

                    And I dispute that bringing more oil into USA refineries will cause higher gasoline prices.

                    I'm not going to advise anyone to forget how to built pipelines. As long as the USA consumes 180 billion gallons of gasoline annually, trillions of cubic feet of natural gas, and oceans of chemicals, there will be pipeline after pipeline built and maintained to bring those products to the marketplace.

                    Pipelines are less environmentally destructive, in my opinion, than the current alternative, which are  interstate highways with diesel-powered trucks chugging along.

                    Tar Sands oil production is breathtakingly environmentally destructive, but stopping the pipeline will not stop tar sands production.

                    •  so, you missed the part in the comment (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      FishOutofWater, Matt Z, aliasalias

                      that you actually replied to that contained the independent study by Cornell university (PDF)... that said

                      The project will create no more than 2,500-4,650 temporary direct construction jobs for two years, according to TransCanada’s own data supplied to the State Department.

                      Oh, and this...

                      The company’s claim that KXL will create 20,000 direct construction and manufacturing jobs in the U.S is not substantiated.

                      But, you're still quoting the 20,000 number based on NEWS stories??

                      You are starting to sounds like you're not interested in having an honest discussion...

                      "The death penalty is never about the criminal. They've already done their worst. The question is always "will we join them"?" - jlynne

                      by Hopeful Skeptic on Sun Nov 06, 2011 at 10:51:33 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

            •  It's another wrong step...it's NOT clean (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Lura

                 It seems to my reading that "6412093" doesn't truly 'get' that any investment in more fossil fuel is an investment NOT made for clean and renewable energy.
                "6412093", based on the content of all posts so far, doesn't seem to think there is a carbon problem...you know, the 350 ppm of carbon in the atmosphere that McKibben has emphasized.

                 If one refuses to acknowledge there is a 'burning fossil fuel' problem, then the pipeline as a local North American continental source, could make sense.

              BUT, there IS a carbon problem! (and a resultant climate problem).

                 And, burning carbon fuels is, therefore, the WRONG way to go.  Only a societal determination to abandon carbon energy for clean (no carbon) renewable energy ASAP makes any real and long-term sense.

              Urantian

        •  We are driving less. Gas consumption is way down. (4+ / 0-)

          Checkout Bondadblog.com

          look for my eSci diary series Thursday evening. "Forgive them; for they know not what they do."

          by FishOutofWater on Sun Nov 06, 2011 at 06:52:30 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Well if you ignore the job losses (0+ / 0-)

      And environmental costs, both real, then it looks like a good deal.  In reality it'd make more economic sense to pay the workers not to build the damn thing

      Intelligent, passionate, perceptive people will always disagree, but we should not let that disagreement, however heartfelt, lead us to become deaf to those better angels of our nature.

      by Mindful Nature on Mon Nov 07, 2011 at 08:31:04 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (151)
  • Community (66)
  • 2016 (44)
  • Environment (43)
  • Republicans (39)
  • Culture (37)
  • Elections (36)
  • Bernie Sanders (34)
  • Memorial Day (31)
  • Labor (28)
  • Media (27)
  • Education (26)
  • Climate Change (25)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (25)
  • Civil Rights (24)
  • Barack Obama (24)
  • Hillary Clinton (24)
  • Spam (23)
  • GOP (23)
  • Economy (22)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site