State draft environmental assessment approves latest Keystone XL route

[RogueBeaver]

Final decision either way comes in July or August, but still for now.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I presume you mean the Department of State, but you could be clearer since the States it is crossing are also doing assessments. Nebraska released theirs a few weeks ago approving the new route thru the Cornhusker State, so when I saw the thread title I thought you were referring to another State having prepared a draft.

[DINGO Joe]

Nebraska was the only state that hadn't given final approval to the route.  I expect it'll be approved and will be finished in 2015 right about at the point the US will no longer be able to absorb all Canadian production and Keystone oil will be loaded up and exported.

[DINGO Joe]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/18/business/energy-environment/mountain-of-petroleum-coke-from-oil-sands-rises-in-detroit.html?ref=business&_r=1&


They say a picture is worth a thousand words:



This is the type of thing that could stop the XL.  No surprise the Koch brothers are involved.

[Ban my account ffs!]

I initially opposed the Keystone XL pipeline due to the routing and potential groundwater contamination from spills.

But they have addressed some of those concerns.

Unfortunately, that sh**t is going to be burned regardless of American action on Keystone XL. 

Think of it from a global perspective.  If it is going to be burned almost assuredly somewhere, the best way from a pollution reduction standpoint would be to import it into the U.S. and burn it more cleanly than somewhere like China would (after transporting it over the ocean, burning lots of fuel itself).

Think of it as a sacrifice that makes the best out of a bad situation. 

Also, environmentalists would do well to heartily support fracking for natural gas.  Natural gas is the cleanest fossil fuel we burn.  And switching from coal to natural gas has suddenly made the U.S. the top in the world for carbon emission reductions while previous leaders (Europe) are turning back to coal as a kneejerk reaction to Fukushima (in Germany, shuttering nuclear plants), and because the gas situation in Europe is more precarious with moody and unreliable Russia supplying it.

If it's going to be done... why not let us own it.  Then we can at least have a say in reducing the impact.  We can't really do sh**t about how much and how dirtily China burns their fuel of choice.  Let's make the choice for them.

[DINGO Joe]

Well, at this point, we are the only ones who burn it, because the Canadians really don't have the means to export tar sands oil.  Given the sharp increase in shale oil production in the US (which is a lighter oil), there is some question as to whether the Keystone Oil will be used in the US or exported.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/08/column-kemp-canada-oil-pipelines-idUSL5N0B8EET20130208

My initial feeling was somewhat like yours, but I had assumed that we were handling tar sands oil better than this, and apparently we're not.

By and large I agree with you on NG, but the tar sands I'm starting to swing against.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I initially opposed the Keystone XL pipeline due to the routing and potential groundwater contamination from spills.

But they have addressed some of those concerns.

Unfortunately, that sh**t is going to be burned regardless of American action on Keystone XL.  

Think of it from a global perspective.  If it is going to be burned almost assuredly somewhere, the best way from a pollution reduction standpoint would be to import it into the U.S. and burn it more cleanly than somewhere like China would (after transporting it over the ocean, burning lots of fuel itself).

Think of it as a sacrifice that makes the best out of a bad situation.  

Also, environmentalists would do well to heartily support fracking for natural gas.  Natural gas is the cleanest fossil fuel we burn.  And switching from coal to natural gas has suddenly made the U.S. the top in the world for carbon emission reductions while previous leaders (Europe) are turning back to coal as a kneejerk reaction to Fukushima (in Germany, shuttering nuclear plants), and because the gas situation in Europe is more precarious with moody and unreliable Russia supplying it.

If it's going to be done... why not let us own it.  Then we can at least have a say in reducing the impact.  We can't really do sh**t about how much and how dirtily China burns their fuel of choice.  Let's make the choice for them.

Only someone who wants Northern Minnesota to be warmer would be so in favor of fossil fuels when solar panels are 40 cents a watt.