Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Environment & Energy
Related: About this forumPlease take a minute and a half
to write to
President Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
Washington, DC
20500
and say NO pipeline.
Thank you.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
2 replies, 562 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (7)
ReplyReply to this post
2 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Please take a minute and a half (Original Post)
oldandhappy
Feb 2014
OP
kristopher
(29,798 posts)1. In case people would like to go into more detail
This list the main flaws in the State Dept study, from a citizen (not legalistic) perspective.
7 Facts That Werent In The New State Department Report On Keystone XL
BY RYAN KORONOWSKI ON JANUARY 31, 2014 AT 4:36 PM
The State Department released its final supplemental environmental impact statement on the controversial Keystone XL pipeline on Friday. Critics and supporters of the pipeline alike have awaited the report, ever since President Obama last year singled out carbon pollution as a parameter in Keystones national interest calculation.
The newly-released report admits to the obvious: that the total direct and indirect emissions of the project would contribute to cumulative global GHG emissions. But in its final analysis, it says the proposed pipeline is unlikely to significantly affect the rate of extraction in oil sands areas, and does not look at the overall greenhouse gas emissions of the tar sands oil that would flow through it.
The pipelines prospects remain a mystery, much like they were when the draft environmental impact statement was released last year: it still says that the pipeline is not a big deal, will not appreciably increase carbon pollution, and will not have a significant environmental impact. But the report does not consider a scenario in which smaller amounts of tar sands oils are extracted, transported, and consumed. Every single scenario measured in it assumes that a Keystone XL-sized amount of tar sands oil will get burned.
But there are seven important facts that the state departments survey left out:
1. Keystone XL, Not Rail, Is the Only Feasible Option
The final EIS says that rail will likely be able to accommodate new production if new pipelines are delayed or not constructed. This argument is also put forward by supporters, and essentially says that if the tar sands oil will not be exported via this pipeline, it will just be shipped away via railway meaning approval of the project will not result in significant carbon pollution increases. Yet an analysis by Reuters Patrick Rucker found that rail transport is too expensive and just is not feasible. Industry officials we very skeptical about adopting crude-by-rail as an alternative, meaning that oil companies with a stake in the dirty tar sands deposits see Keystone XL as essential to getting that oil to market.
2. KXLs Alternative, Shipping Oil by Pipeline or Rail, Is Dangerous
.....
BY RYAN KORONOWSKI ON JANUARY 31, 2014 AT 4:36 PM
The State Department released its final supplemental environmental impact statement on the controversial Keystone XL pipeline on Friday. Critics and supporters of the pipeline alike have awaited the report, ever since President Obama last year singled out carbon pollution as a parameter in Keystones national interest calculation.
The newly-released report admits to the obvious: that the total direct and indirect emissions of the project would contribute to cumulative global GHG emissions. But in its final analysis, it says the proposed pipeline is unlikely to significantly affect the rate of extraction in oil sands areas, and does not look at the overall greenhouse gas emissions of the tar sands oil that would flow through it.
The pipelines prospects remain a mystery, much like they were when the draft environmental impact statement was released last year: it still says that the pipeline is not a big deal, will not appreciably increase carbon pollution, and will not have a significant environmental impact. But the report does not consider a scenario in which smaller amounts of tar sands oils are extracted, transported, and consumed. Every single scenario measured in it assumes that a Keystone XL-sized amount of tar sands oil will get burned.
But there are seven important facts that the state departments survey left out:
1. Keystone XL, Not Rail, Is the Only Feasible Option
The final EIS says that rail will likely be able to accommodate new production if new pipelines are delayed or not constructed. This argument is also put forward by supporters, and essentially says that if the tar sands oil will not be exported via this pipeline, it will just be shipped away via railway meaning approval of the project will not result in significant carbon pollution increases. Yet an analysis by Reuters Patrick Rucker found that rail transport is too expensive and just is not feasible. Industry officials we very skeptical about adopting crude-by-rail as an alternative, meaning that oil companies with a stake in the dirty tar sands deposits see Keystone XL as essential to getting that oil to market.
2. KXLs Alternative, Shipping Oil by Pipeline or Rail, Is Dangerous
.....
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/01/31/3231991/keystone-national/
EPA page on the "social cost" of carbon. Obama led the way in making this a meaningful part of federal bureaucratic rule making. He should follow the spirit of this initiative in making his final decision on the KXL.
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/EPAactivities/economics/scc.html
progressoid
(49,991 posts)2. Rec but...
I think it's already a done deal.
It's just a matter of when it gets approved - before or after the election. Which ever is most politically expedient.