Why are Obama and the democrats so opposed to the Keystone Pipeline?

This was all so predictably entertaining to watch happen.

 

Here's why.

Keystone Pipeline leaks 210,000 gallons of oil in South Dakota

A total of 210,000 gallons of oil leaked Thursday from the Keystone Pipeline in Marshall County, South Dakota, the pipeline's operator, TransCanada, said.

Crews shut down the pipeline Thursday morning and officials are investigating the cause of the leak.

This is the largest Keystone oil spill to date in South Dakota, said Brian Walsh, a spokesman for the state's Department of Environment and Natural Resources.

In April 2016, there was a 400-barrel release -- or 16,800 gallons -- with the majority of the oil cleanup completed in two months, Walsh said.

There were no initial reports of the oil spill affecting waterways, water systems or wildlife, he said.

TransCanada said it was working with state and federal agencies.

"The safety of the public and environment are our top priorities and we will continue to provide updates as they become available," the company said.

The sections of pipeline affected stretch from Hardisty, Alberta, to Cushing, Oklahoma, and to Wood River, Illinois, the company said.
Environmental activist group Greenpeace said the spill shows another section of the pipeline in Nebraska should not be approved.
"The Nebraska Public Service Commission needs to take a close look at this spill," said Rachel Rye Butler of Greenpeace. "A permit approval allowing Canadian oil company TransCanada to build Keystone XL is a thumbs-up to likely spills in the future."
Developing story - more to come

 

Geez who would have seen this coming??

 

Awaiting all those who supported the pipeline to speak on this

Rocket River

 

210,000 gallons is really not very much for an oil spill. Especially if it didn't get into a waterway. By comparison, the Exxon Valdez spilled 11 million gallons and Deepwater Horizon was 210 million gallons. So this was 0.1% the size of the Deepwater Horizon spill. With it not spreading out all over the Gulf of Mexico, the impact will be even less. A tanker truck hold 9,000 gallons, so this is approximately 22 trucks worth. That is partially offset by the fact that you don't need to transport as much oil by truck when you have the pipeline, so there is less pollution from running the trucks, and there is a reduced chance of tanker trucks full of oil crashing and spilling because there are fewer of them on the road. Ultimately, we need oil and we need to transport it. Pipelines are probably the best option, followed by ships, then trains, then trucks.

 

Let's put a pipeline in your backyard then.

 

Sure, any oil company that wants to run a pipeline through my backyard can contact me to negotiate an easement.

 

Agreed. I realize that 5k bbls sounds like a lot (especially when expressed in gallons), but I agree with the order you have here: pipeline, vessels, rail, trucks.

I don't know the particulars of this pipeline because I don't do anything with it. But hopefully they addressed the issue.

 

Forever obtuse.

 

Sign me up. Im fine with it.

 

If by obtuse, you mean in favor of property rights (I can only assume, as it is usually when I am talking about property rights when you call me obtuse), I agree.

 

But the jobs would still be there right? Those tens of thousands and thousands of patriotic American jobs Canada would gift us?

 

The jobs were to clean the huge oil spill that just happened.

 

That doesn't sound like patriotic American job. You must be a dreamer.

 

I'm with @StupidMoniker. The spill is unfortunate, but it's an anecdote. The statistics still favor pipeline transport over rail and truck. I would concede a couple of things. Many small spills (from a truck in an accident, for example) is probably less impactful than a single big spill. Though I'd bet the big spills are probably more thoroughly remediated. Also, a rail or truck transport probably would not go through the Dakotas. So, if I lived in South Dakota, I probably benefit from shifting the burden of spills over to Wyoming regardless of the relative risks.

 

One of the issues, cited by environmentalists, with this particular pipeline is the potential threat to the massive Ogallala fresh water reservoir that irrigates much of the central US (8 different states). How real this threat is, is a matter of dispute, but if contamination were to occur, it would be a major problem.

 

This is way oversimplified. Forbes has a good article on this:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesc...ude-pipeline-rail-truck-or-boat/#119ed1da17ac

A snippet:

Crude oil is moving around the world, around our country, around pristine wilderness, around our cities and towns. It’s going to keep moving, will undoubtedly increase during our new energy boom, so what is the safest way to move it?

The short answer is: truck worse than train worse than pipeline worse than boat (Oilprice.com). But that’s only for human death and property destruction. For the normalized amount of oil spilled, it’s truck worse than pipeline worse than rail worse than boat (Congressional Research Service). Different yet again is for environmental impact (dominated by impact to aquatic habitat), where it’s boat worse than pipeline worse than truck worse than rail.

So it depends upon what your definition is for worse. Is it death and destruction? Is it amount of oil released? Is it land area or water volume contaminated? Is it habitat destroyed? Is it CO2 emitted?

 

Nothing grows good, verdant produce like some crude oil!

 

No ****? I'm shocked.

Whatever you do, do NOT look up how much is considered "spillage" in the average transport (ships, pipes, trucks, trains)

If you reaaaaly want to piss yourself off, look up how much ocean shipping contributes:

There are ~90,000 cargo ships in the ocean in any given year;

They use low, the lowest grade diesel fuel (bunker fuel iirc, it's called), and the shipping companies have refused to upgrade their engines or technology;

Until the USofA (thanks Obama!) and then Europe put a 200km coastal barrier where these guys couldn't just burn off their boilers & dump their ballast in anybody's coastal waters/air, they were dumping all their stuff in the ports and in the air on the coast. Don't ****ing start me on the ****ing ballast. Look up the "zebra mussel". Please. It's unregulated assholes that have irrevocably ****ed up our waterways. Forever. They're in the Highland Lakes now, the dams, the ones that everyone up here relies on for electricity, are ****ed in a couple of decades.

If you're not convinced, look up "lionfish", that now the biologists are begging people to kill them on sight, because assholes set them loose from their aquariums and they're ****ing up the native fish reefs in Florida and, whaddya know?, now at the Flower Garden off Galveston. Don't get me started on Florida Man and his pet python that he set loose in the Everglades.

It is cheaper not to pay them not to retrofit their engines, not to THROW THEIR TRASH OVERBOARD into the ocean, whenever it's convenient;

Fifteen of those ships put out enough air pollution (sulphur, nitrous oxide and particulates) as all of the world's cars combined.

ETA: heh, CometsWin set me off with just a little oil spill? Sorry about that.