cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Nebrfarmr
Veteran Advisor

Re: Keystone looks to be dead

Now that you mention fish kills, aren't the environmentalists saying that farming is causing big fish kills in the Gulf?   More so than oil leaks, according to some sources, if I remember right.

bikinkawboy
Veteran Contributor

Re: Keystone looks to be dead

Before the last pipeline came through my place, I was given a CD copy of the proposal submitted to the feds for approval.  I trashed the CD a while back, but if memory serves, there was something like 1275 pages of environmental studies concerning groundwater, surface streams being crossed, air or dust pollution, impacts to wildlife and anything you could ever imagine and then some.  I only read the part dealing with my immediate area, but in my town job I have to deal with environmental impacts anytime we build a pond or terraces.  I thought my paperwork was thorough (and excessive), but the stuff on the proposed pipeline route made my stuff look like a kindergarteners scribblings.

 

I find it very hard to believe that the pipeline environmental designers somehow missed any potential threats to the Ogalalla Aquifer in Nebraska.  Those guys get paid big bucks to do their job and I figure the chances of a, "Gee, I hadn't thought of that" situation occuring is about as remote as me having an unknown millionaire uncle die and leave me his entire fortune.  Call me suspicious, but I suspect that someone somewhere is going to come out smelling like a rose when this is settled regardless of which way it goes.  Since vetoing something that would reduce our reliance on Middle East oil and created jobs, even temporary ones in an election year could be considered political suicide, it may not be Obama that benefits, but I bet somewhere down the political foodchain someone stands to make money or gain power from the result.  And one way or another, it will be us little guys that take it in the shorts.  

Nebrfarmr
Veteran Advisor

Re: Keystone looks to be dead


@bikinkawboy wrote:

Before the last pipeline came through my place, I was given a CD copy of the proposal submitted to the feds for approval.  I trashed the CD a while back, but if memory serves, there was something like 1275 pages of environmental studies concerning groundwater, surface streams being crossed, air or dust pollution, impacts to wildlife and anything you could ever imagine and then some.  I only read the part dealing with my immediate area, but in my town job I have to deal with environmental impacts anytime we build a pond or terraces.  I thought my paperwork was thorough (and excessive), but the stuff on the proposed pipeline route made my stuff look like a kindergarteners scribblings.

 

I find it very hard to believe that the pipeline environmental designers somehow missed any potential threats to the Ogalalla Aquifer in Nebraska.  Those guys get paid big bucks to do their job and I figure the chances of a, "Gee, I hadn't thought of that" situation occuring is about as remote as me having an unknown millionaire uncle die and leave me his entire fortune.  Call me suspicious, but I suspect that someone somewhere is going to come out smelling like a rose when this is settled regardless of which way it goes.  Since vetoing something that would reduce our reliance on Middle East oil and created jobs, even temporary ones in an election year could be considered political suicide, it may not be Obama that benefits, but I bet somewhere down the political foodchain someone stands to make money or gain power from the result.  And one way or another, it will be us little guys that take it in the shorts.  



Exactly what I was thinking, the only question is, who?

 

I find it really odd, how the Feds, with pretty much unlimited resources, said it would take at least until after the next Presidential election, to come up with a recommendation, while the Nebraska DEQ, could do the same studies, over the original proposed route, along with alternative routes proposed, and have it done in 1/3 the time.  I just want to know why that would be.

GreaTOne_65
Senior Contributor

Re: Keystone looks to be dead

From your reply, kawboy, you have a pipeline running across/close to your place? From what has been written, this is not going to do anything for our reliance on ME oil, it's just another oil company money grab. I am interested as to what you know about these pipelines or if you've had any experience with them?

GreaTOne_65
Senior Contributor

Re: Keystone looks to be dead

Would it make you feel better if they just rubber stamped it? Why would should that bother you, even on the outside chance the US is going to be the recipient of this oil, it's going to be 5 yrs. or more before it's effect can or will impact our oil market.

r3020
Senior Advisor

Re: Keystone looks to be dead

There is already Canadian oil coming into the US. This is to supply US refineries making the strait of hormuz meaningless to us. The enviro don't want it because it cuts into their green energy pipe dreams. Remember Obama said under his energy policies the cost of energy would have to shy rocket. The enviros are perfectly willing to destroy high paying union jobs to accomplish their dreams.

 

snip-Phase 1

The 3,456 kilometres (2,147 mi) long pipeline runs from Hardisty, Alberta to the United States refineries in Wood River, Illinois and Patoka, Illinois.[32] The Canadian section involves approximately 864 kilometres (537 mi) of pipeline converted from the Canadian Mainline natural gas pipeline and 373 kilometres (232 mi) of new pipeline, pump stations and terminal facilities at Hardisty, Alberta. The United States section is 2,219 kilometres (1,379 mi) long.[33] It runs through Buchanan, Clinton and Caldwell counties in Missouri, and Nemaha, Brown and Doniphan counties in Kansas.[9] Phase 1 went online in June 2010.

  [edit] Phase 2

From Steele City, Nebraska, the 291 miles (468 km) Keystone-Cushing pipeline was routed through Kansas to the oil hub and tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma in 2010 and went online in February 2011.[1]

  [edit] Phase 3

This phase, known as Cushing MarketLink, is part of the Keystone XL pipeline. This proposed phase would start from Cushing, Oklahoma where domestic oil would be added to the pipeline, then it would expand 435 miles (700 km) to a delivery point near terminals in Nederland, Texas to serve the Port Arthur, Texas marketplace.[1] Also proposed is an approximate 47 miles (76 km) previous pipeline to transport crude oil from the pipeline in Liberty County, Texas to the Houston, Texas area.[1][34]

Domestic oil producers in the USA are pushing for this phase so the glut of oil can be distributed out of the large oil tank farms and distribution center in Cushing, Oklahoma. On November 16, 2011, Enbridge announced it is buying ConocoPhillips' 50% interest in the Seaway pipeline that flows from the Gulf of Mexico to the Cushing hub. In cooperation with Enterprise Products Partners LP it plans to reverse the Seaway pipeline so that an oversupply of oil at Cushing could reach the Gulf.[35] This project will replace the earlier proposed alternative Wrangler pipeline project from Cushing to the Gulf Coast.[35][36] However, according to industries, the Seaway line alone is not enough for oil transportation to the Gulf Coast.[37]

  [edit] Phase 4

This phase is part of the Keystone XL pipeline and would start from the same area in Alberta, Canada as the main pipeline.[10] The Canadian section would consist of 529 kilometres (329 mi) of new pipeline.[12] It would enter the United States at Morgan, Montana and travel through Baker, Montana where domestic oil would be added to the pipeline, then it would travel through South Dakota and Nebraska, where it would join the existing Keystone pipelines at Steele City, Nebraska.[1] This phase has generated the greatest controversy because of its routing over the top of the Ogallala Aquifer in Nebraska.[

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keystone_Pipeline

r3020
Senior Advisor

Re: Re BTW 3020


@kraft-t wrote:

Solyndra was signed onto by GW Bush. Not Obama.


And just how big of loan did the Bush administration back for them? 

Nebrfarmr
Veteran Advisor

Re: Keystone looks to be dead


@GreaTOne_65 wrote:

Would it make you feel better if they just rubber stamped it?

 

I said nothing about giving it a 'rubber stamp'.  What I was asking is why the Nebraska DEQ can do a study, in under 6 months, when it woud take the Feds 3X as long, other than the fact that the results would come in, until after the next election?

The only proposed route changes I know of are within Nebraska, so it would seem that the Feds wouldn't have any more work to do than the Nebraska DEQ, and have vastly greater resources with which to do it.

Also, for the record, I would trust that the Nebraska DEQ would come up with an answer that is more scientific, and less political than the Feds would, as well.  I think you would have to search long and hard to find a State with a better record of responsible action from their DEQ than Nebraska.

Why would should that bother you, even on the outside chance the US is going to be the recipient of this oil, it's going to be 5 yrs. or more before it's effect can or will impact our oil market.

 

I can remember, as a young buck, just old enough to vote for one Presidential election, when I was told that there was 'no point' in developing oil in ANWR, in Alaska, because it would take something 'close to 10 years' before that oil got down to the continental US, and to US refineries. 
Pop quiz, does anyone know how many years ago that was?

Here's Wiki's answer:

 

The question of whether to drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) has been an ongoing political controversy in the United States since 1977.[1] The issue has been used by both Democrats and Republicans as a political device, especially through contentious election cycles, and has been the subject of much debate in the National media.[2]

 

-snip (things looked like drilling might happen, until it took an act of Congress to allow it)-

 

 

On December 2, 1980, Carter signed into law the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, which created more than 104,000,000 acres (420,000 km2) of national parks, wildlife refuges and wilderness areas from Federal holdings in that state. The bill allowed drilling in ANWR, but not without prior approval from Congress. Both sides of the controversy announced they would attempt to change it in the next session of Congress.[12]


And this is where we have been ever since.  I have a feeling the Keystone thing will have a similar fate.  Politicians will keep punting their answers into the future, so as not to have to make a tough decision near an election time.  The difference here is that if there are too many delays, Canada will likely run the pipe somewhere else.  Whether that is the best decision or not, I don't know, because the studies to decide the pros/cons of this won't be available until after the next Presidential election, and by then it will probably be too late, anyway.

bikinkawboy
Veteran Contributor

Re: Keystone looks to be dead

I have three pipelines across the corner of my farm.  The original Platte was put in in the mid '50s I believe, but is now owned by Kinder Morgan of Canada.  Then came the 42" REX natural gas line in something like 2007, I can't remember exactly when.  That carries natural gas from Wyoming east and I believe the idea is to reduce the more common heating oil use by replacing it with natural gas.  Then a couple of years after that came the 24" Kinder Morgan, which carries Canadian crude oil line to Wood River, IL.

 

Everyone keeps talking about rerouting the proposed pipeline, but I don't know if that's feasible or even possible.  The reason I have three pipelines side by side is because pipelines MUST follow what is called "pipeline corridors" and that's from the Feds.  If some company thinks they are going to take off across country with a pipeline outside of an existing corridor, they have another thing coming.  I haven't been able to find the proposed route of the Keystone line, which I'd like to see.  Chances are there are already existing pipelines in the contested area of Nebraska.  To establish a new corridor, chances are it would take an act of Congress, literally.

 

I'm also SWCD technician.  I know the pipeline representatives for this area well and I have a good working relationship with them.  I've worked with them on my own farm, on other landowners farms where we or they are proposing construction and when having a pipeline safety workshop for contractors and farmer-contractors.  From working with them, I've learned loads about what they have to deal with and it ain't no walk in the park for them.  They have federal and state governmental agencies breathing down their neck continually.  Then throw in all of the environmental impact and cultural resources (as in Indian artifacts) paperwork I have to do when proposing any kind of ground disturbing work, and I get it from both sides. 

 

Pipeline ownership or leasing is continually changing like a circus juggling act.  The pipeline guys tell me it's due to income tax opportunities.  Not only have I had construction on my farm, there have been excavations to make repairs on the Platte.  The pipelines have always been very fair and even generous when it comes to paying me for crop damages as well as reduced yields in the 2  years following excavation. 

 

I know the Ogalalla aquifer is literally at the surface of the ground in the Sand Hills.  I've been there and have seen the standing pools of water which is the aquifer itself.  The further south you go, the deeper the aquifer is.  I certainly don't enjoy seeing land torn up for any reason, but that's the price of progress regardless of whether it's a pipeline, highway, suburb, etc.  They recently 4 laned US 63 through my county.  I work with individual farmers that lost over 200 acres each of prime farmland to that project .  That's land that is forever lost, whereas with a pipeline, land is disturbed for two years usally with full production back a couple of years after that.  And I bet that all of the environmentalists that fight such projects drive their car or SUV to the protest rally, heat their home with petroleum products and light their home with electricity generated from coal or natural gas.  I figure if they don't want any land disturbed, they should be the first ones to give up all of the benefits they have that are the result of energy extraction.   

 

Nebrfarmr
Veteran Advisor

Re: Keystone looks to be dead

 

http://www.transcanada.com/keystone_pipeline_map.html

 

Here's a link to the map.  The contested area (Nebraska Sandhills over the Ogalala Aquafer) basically could be diverted by going East, a little South of Pierre, SD, and going alongside the existing pipeline.  The Nebraska DEQ said they would do all the environmental impact reviews if they were to follow the proposed route to the Nebraska border, and then shift East, to the existing corridor.  The pipeline would then only skirt the Northern edge of the aquafer, or so I am told.  However, the DEQ wants an actual answer from the Obama adminstration, as to what they will do, when the reviews are done.  They do not want to pay for a review, and if/when a route is agreed upon by both TransCanada, and the DEQ, and then have it denied by the Feds.