Posted on 08/18/2011 2:30:22 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
A controversial proposal to build a massive underground pipeline to carry 700,000 barrels of crude oil per day from the oil sands of Alberta, Canada, to refineries in Texas has become the environmental issue of the summer, pitting developers and labor unions desperate for construction jobs against environmentalists and Native American tribes who fear the pipeline will spell environmental disaster.
TransCanada Corp.'s proposed Keystone XL project would consist of more than 1,700 miles of 36-inch-diameter pipe, about 327 miles of which would be in Canada while the rest would snake southward through the central United States. Because the pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada, and Morgan, Montana, a special permit from the U.S. Department of State is required .. to proceed.
More than 1,000 activists -- including NASA climatologist James Hansen, who has urged the scientific community to "get involved in this fray" -- are expected to descend on the White House starting Sunday for three weeks of civil disobedience and mass arrests. Six California activists are driving from Sacramento to Washington, D.C. as part of a "No Tar Sands Caravan" that leaves Sunday.
The American Petroleum Institute and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, both of which are urging the State Department to approve the project, held a conference call with journalists Thursday in which they claimed the pipeline could generate 20,000 new jobs.
"Today, with the US economy still struggling, nothing is more important than jobs," said Cindy Schild, API's refining issues manager. "And construction of the pipeline would mean massive numbers of them."
Jim Kimball, chief economist for the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, said that Teamsters president James Hoffa has written to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton urging approval of the project, which would create union jobs related to building and maintaining the pipeline.
(Excerpt) Read more at mercurynews.com ...
...a massive underground pipeline to carry 700,000 barrels of crude oil per day from the oil sands of Alberta, Canada, to refineries in Texas... would consist of more than 1,700 miles of 36-inch-diameter pipe, about 327 miles of which would be in Canada while the rest would snake southward through the central United States... The American Petroleum Institute and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters... claimed the pipeline could generate 20,000 new jobs. "Today, with the US economy still struggling, nothing is more important than jobs," said Cindy Schild, API's refining issues manager.The head of the Teamsters also claimed, in 2004, that electing John Kerry would mean drill, drill, drill. Gosh, I'm so sorry I didn't vote for Kerry. /s
easier to monitor leaks too
Wouldn’t it be more difficult to try and sabotage an underground pipeline, than an above ground one? They had to put it above ground in AK, but you don’t have to down here.
Luddites!
Screw the envirowacos. We got lots more problems around than protecting some freekin mouse, grasshopper or striped slug. We got people losing their retirement, homes, jobs, etc. These mamby pamby tree huggers need to get a grip & step out of the way. May then, when WE set things right again, they can go back to navel grazing.
Only the parts that are in the permafrost and not exposed to significant avalanche damage. The elevated portion cost a LOT more than the buried portions.
The above ground portion of the Trans-Alaskan Pipeline has also experienced some of the dangers of an above ground pipeline in remote areas.
And if it was built in North Dakota, we would have to build even more pipelines to carry the products.
good. build it in north dakota. more production capacity is better...and above ground is better even if it does cost a little more. easier to maintain, easier to inspect, easier to repair, easier to upgrade and retrofit.
When it comes to the EPA, creating 20,000 jobs takes a backseat to moving a finch’s nest or inconveniencing a bear.
ya, let’s give China even more money to ramp up it’s military so it can speed up it’s coming invasion.
and an easy target.
You simply have no idea what you are talking about.
Pipeline maintenance is not simpler above ground. All that structure and slide plates create more wear points and expose it to more damage and corrosion.
Pipelines above ground expand and contract with the temperature variations. From day to night, the steel moves and special wear plates have to be maintained and replaced as needed.
We don't inspect pipelines by walking around them, stripping off insulation and coatings. We run smart pigs through them that measure the corrosion and check the integrity.
Pipelines, including the Trans-Alaska Pipeline, are buried when the can be for good reason.
Pipeline sections above ground are far more susceptible to damage.
“Six California activists are driving from Sacramento to Washington, D.C. as part of a “No Tar Sands Caravan” that leaves Sunday.”
Is it me or is it hypocritical for environmentalists to use up all that gas and create all those greenhouse gases to attend a protect across country concerning possible global warming issues? Would it not be better, and make them look better in the process, to just stay home?
Since I am ignorant regarding the mechanics of the oil industry and would like to gain a little knowledge...
Why not build new refinery abilities closer to the source? Is it related to water availability?
Why doesn’t Canada build their own refineries and just sell us the finished product?
Because I would certainly prefer to buy from Canada than the Middle East.
Let China buy their energy from Saudi Arabia.
Yes: I know. There is a pipeline right up the road from me that takes refined products from the Wharf here in St. Marys County to Washington D.C. for Stuart Petroleum.
About 70 miles I would say. Never caused a problem.
Probably most people around here under 20 years old doesn’t even know it is there.
I believe all of those products are shipped through the same pipeline now.They separate them with some sort of bubble, I think.
Thanks Tom for dishing out eductation to those who are clueless on oil/pipeline issues. Thanks for your contribution to the TAPS when you ere here...
This may be a silly question but why must the oil be piped from Canada to TX? Seems to me that just eats away at the profits and makes the EROI ratio less.
Because you still have to build the pipeline for the products. We have the refinery capacity existing, we just replace OPEC oil with Canadian.
It cost far less to use the refineries we have.
If Canada built the refineries, they still have to build the pipeline anyways to deliver product.
But refineries also will produce residual oil, petroleum coke, sulfur and/or wax, etc. These byproducts have an existing market near the existing refineries, or an established distribution system at the refineries. There is far greater cost to building new facilities, new pipelines and being farther from other markets compared to just building a pipeline.
Most people don’t realize that nearly half of TAPS is buried. 380 miles below ground and 420 above.
They only know of TAPS from the pictures and not many take pictures of the underground portion. ;-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.