Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have deep family ties in Nebraska, and I lived there for many years. The opposition coming out of most of the people there, and the R governor and congressional delegation, is siting the pipeline over the Ogallala aquifer in the Sandhills. The soil composition there is such that if there was a leak, it would contaminate the drinking water for over 85% of the state, plus shut down agriculture--all of the pivot irrigation systems and livestock watering come from the aquifer. Agriculture is Nebraska's No. 1 industry. They're asking for a review to resite the line along the eastern edge of the state, away from the aquifer, and where the existing pipeline runs.
The trade unions want this thing built now. The R elected leaders in Nebraska are the ones fighting it. That's why the administration is taking a second look at this--because the Nebraska delegation (rightly so) thinks the current plan is dangerous to the state.
The pipeline has been reviewed for three years and has passed every one. The are several pipelines already crossing over that aquifer and there have been no problems. They really just want to review it to death. They don't want to burn oil on this planet.
This country has got to cut the crap with regulation. You can't build anything anymore without government interference. People need jobs. The USA is going bankrupt. Without a strong economy we will have a weak defense. Build an extra layer of safety into the pipeline but BUILD IT.
Yay can we please employ some people temporarily to build a risky pipeline so that oil companies can sell north american oil to China? Typical conservative planning.
The people of Nebraska didn't want it going through their state and asked for an environmental assessment.
The pipeline has been reviewed for three years and has passed every one. The are several pipelines already crossing over that aquifer and there have been no problems. They really just want to review it to death. They don't want to burn oil on this planet.
I have deep family ties in Nebraska, and I lived there for many years. The opposition coming out of most of the people there, and the R governor and congressional delegation, is siting the pipeline over the Ogallala aquifer in the Sandhills. The soil composition there is such that if there was a leak, it would contaminate the drinking water for over 85% of the state, plus shut down agriculture--all of the pivot irrigation systems and livestock watering come from the aquifer. Agriculture is Nebraska's No. 1 industry. They're asking for a review to resite the line along the eastern edge of the state, away from the aquifer, and where the existing pipeline runs.
The trade unions want this thing built now. The R elected leaders in Nebraska are the ones fighting it. That's why the administration is taking a second look at this--because the Nebraska delegation (rightly so) thinks the current plan is dangerous to the state.
Really?
17 of the 18 oil producing counties in Nebraska are sitting on top of that aquifer. How do they get that oil up from beneath the aquifer? Could they be drilling through it? Goodness! How on earth did they get permits to do that?
21,000 miles of pipline running throughout that state with over 3,000 of it carrying hazardous materials and some through the aquifer footprint but THIS pipeline is the risky one?
Over 3 years of study by all authorizing agencies of the environmental risks posed to that aquifer and Nebraska maintains it's going to be the unsafe one.
Could it be that it is a pipeline running through the state being used to pipe foreign oil to Texas with Nebraska not getting a big enough cut so to H*** with the rest of the country's need for jobs and a stable supply of oil? Naaah; that couldn't be it.
Obama rejected building the pipeline down to the gulf which would have created 20,000 construction jobs immediately and hundreds of thousands of jobs in the near term. He is doing it only to satisfy his radical environmental base for his re-election even though he knows it is the wrong thing to do for our country. Hardly a mention of it in the media.
I never could understand why construction unions stand with tree huggers.
Actually, plenty of people have come out against these figures. The Perriman study that was done and paid for by TransCanada indicated 119,000 jobs both direct and indirect. You indicated several hundred thousand.
Can you supply proof of this or are you a liar? I've searched online and can't find anything about several hundred thousand.
To boot, in reading the wiki, it seems that an institute at an Ivy League school crunched the numbers. They estimate that this would drive up the cost of gas in the midwest 10-20 cents a gallon taking away any net benefit to this. To boot, it seems that TransCanada, for example, claimed employment benefit for parts of the pipeline that already exist. They estimate the employment at 2500-4650 jobs over 2 years.
I can't fault TransCanada for trying to make a case. It would let them sell their product that they're already selling in the United States for a higher price. That's great for them, but I'd rather see the United States benefit from things. Perhaps if owned TC stock and lived in Canada I'd think differently.
That's not even counting the potential impact of a spill on the billions of dollars of agriculture profits where the pipeline would go.
There's no data that says without a doubt this would be good for the country.
I'm also not sure why people would get upset about this and not bother reading about it. I'm guessing they're probably social conservatives and there are plenty of studies around which might speculate why this would be.
Really? Not surprising! how many thousands of jobs did he kill after the Deepwater tragedy, in the moratorium on drilling in the Gulf? Sounds like some attacking of Capitalism, and just what I expect from him and his kind.
17 of the 18 oil producing counties in Nebraska are sitting on top of that aquifer. How do they get that oil up from beneath the aquifer? Could they be drilling through it? Goodness! How on earth did they get permits to do that?
21,000 miles of pipline running throughout that state with over 3,000 of it carrying hazardous materials and some through the aquifer footprint but THIS pipeline is the risky one?
Over 3 years of study by all authorizing agencies of the environmental risks posed to that aquifer and Nebraska maintains it's going to be the unsafe one.
Could it be that it is a pipeline running through the state being used to pipe foreign oil to Texas with Nebraska not getting a big enough cut so to H*** with the rest of the country's need for jobs and a stable supply of oil? Naaah; that couldn't be it.
Why don't you read your own links and look at your own maps before you comment. Look at the map you posted, and note the big empty area where the new pipe would run--the one that doesn't currently have pipe running through it. That's in the Sandhills. The geography of Nebraska changes dramatically, sometimes from county to county. There's a reason why there's no pipe there now--it's sand dunes covered with prairie grass, the ground is incredibly porous, and it's directly over a major portion of the aquifer. Note all the pipe east and south of there? A small portion of it is over the aquifter, but in those areas the soil is more like concrete, and a spill could be minimized. There's currently a keystone pipe running through eastern nebraska, and they want the new one located there as well.
When Keystone says that groups participated in the decision making process, it fails to mention that some of them objected. I have no idea what went on behind the scenes in the state department's earlier assessment that the current path was safe, but once it became public, Nebraskans from every political standpoint came out in full force to protest the current path. What I've heard is that when the State Department did the initial environmental statement, they took into account what they believe was in the best interests of the country vs. the local impact. Too bad.
I want to know when the feds have the right to walk in and tell an entire state that the safety of their drinking and irrigation water isn't a top priority--it's big government at it's worst, and the Obama admin had a lot of people ticked off at them over this until they agreed to give it a second look. Nebraska should have the right to demand basic safety measures for it's citizens and industry, and I could care less what impact that has on Keystone. The Nebraska legislature is working on a bill now that would require Keystone to gain approval from state government before another plan can be implemented. This isn't coming from liberals--it's red state America and the largely R state general assembly, governor and congressional delegation behind ths. The majority of people don't have a problem with the pipeline--it's with the location. It's not Nebraska's job to save Keystone a few bucks if it means putting their water supply in peril. We still own property there, and a major spill would make the area inhabitable and the farmland worthless.
Actually, plenty of people have come out against these figures. The Perriman study that was done and paid for by TransCanada indicated 119,000 jobs both direct and indirect. You indicated several hundred thousand.
Can you supply proof of this or are you a liar? I've searched online and can't find anything about several hundred thousand.
To boot, in reading the wiki, it seems that an institute at an Ivy League school crunched the numbers. They estimate that this would drive up the cost of gas in the midwest 10-20 cents a gallon taking away any net benefit to this. To boot, it seems that TransCanada, for example, claimed employment benefit for parts of the pipeline that already exist. They estimate the employment at 2500-4650 jobs over 2 years.
I can't fault TransCanada for trying to make a case. It would let them sell their product that they're already selling in the United States for a higher price. That's great for them, but I'd rather see the United States benefit from things. Perhaps if owned TC stock and lived in Canada I'd think differently.
That's not even counting the potential impact of a spill on the billions of dollars of agriculture profits where the pipeline would go.
There's no data that says without a doubt this would be good for the country.
I'm also not sure why people would get upset about this and not bother reading about it. I'm guessing they're probably social conservatives and there are plenty of studies around which might speculate why this would be.
I already provided the backup for my numbers in a previous post on this thread.
But here is the real reason for Obama's decision to stop the pipeline (and from the ultra-liberal NY Times!) http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/11/op...-pipeline.html
The argument was simple: increased greenhouse gas emissions from Alberta’s oil sands would be devastating for the planet. But that message was not enough. So campaigners joined forces with an unusual set of allies: Nebraska landowners and politicians, many of them pro-oil Republicans, who simply did not want a pipeline running through their backyards.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
