More details on the considerations involved. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/11/nebraska-keystone-pipeline-delay_n_1088161.html BILLINGS, Mont. The White House plan to seek alternate routes for a Canada-to-Texas oil pipeline presents a tangle of new problems for the project's backers, and any of those obstacles could still sink the proposal before the first spade of dirt is turned. Shifting the path to avoid a major aquifer could increase the number of perilous stream crossings and put the line closer to populated areas. Major changes also risk alienating pipeline supporters, who tout the economic benefits of creating thousands of jobs. And the most vocal opponents plan to keep up their fight regardless of the route. The obstacles are tall enough, some observers say, that Canada's oil-sands industry could even decide to bypass U.S. markets altogether and sell fuel directly to China using a pipeline through western Canada to the shores of the Pacific. TransCanada's $7 billion Keystone XL pipeline would carry up to 700,000 barrels of crude a day from Alberta's tar sands to Gulf Coast refineries. The original route crossed six states, including Nebraska, where opponents worried about threats to the massive Ogallala aquifer. The line also would pass through Montana, South Dakota, Kansas and Oklahoma. Largely because of complaints from Nebraska, the State Department agreed Thursday to look for new routes that would steer clear of the state's Sandhills region and the aquifer, which flows beneath eight states and provides irrigation to huge farming areas. That effort will delay a final decision until early 2013. TransCanada's director of field operations, Jim Krause, declined Friday to go into any detail about possible alternative routes. "We only got the news late yesterday," Krause said. "We're mulling a lot of things." Thirteen alternate routes were reviewed and rejected by the State Department over the past three years. Among those were paths to follow an existing TransCanada pipeline that roughly tracks the Canadian border east from Montana across North Dakota and then turns south to go through eastern South Dakota and Nebraska. That option, favored by Nebraska's governor, passes through a much smaller portion of the Ogallala aquifer. But it was rejected in part because the route is longer and would have raised the project's price tag by about 25 percent, or an estimated $1.7 billion. Also rejected were two routes that paralleled a stretch of Interstate 90 in South Dakota to avoid the Sandhills. Those would have cost almost $500 million more and involved putting the line through more densely populated areas and across more streams and rivers that could be fouled if the conduit broke or leaked. Two western routes that passed through Wyoming and Colorado were thrown out because they would have added several hundred miles to the line, again making it more expensive. An industry consultant who headed the federal pipeline safety agency under the Bush administration said any changes probably mean building a longer pipeline than TransCanada originally planned. That could expose the project to still more objections because a longer pipeline has more points at which it can fail. "You could set this pipeline up for a death by a thousand cuts: Next, year, the new route's not good enough," consultant Brigham McCown said. "I'm very skeptical about the fairness of the process at this point." The environmental group Friends of the Earth has sought a broader government review that would address national energy policies and whether it is in the country's best interest to expand the use of a fuel considered more environmentally damaging than conventional oil. "I don't think there is an alternative route that solves the problems of this project," said Damon Moglen, the group's climate director. But a wider review was rejected by Assistant Secretary of State Kerri-Ann Jones. She told reporters Thursday the process would focus on alternative routes. Jones also ruled out any significant changes to the pipeline path outside of Nebraska, saying that for now the agency's review will be limited to that state. Kevin Cramer, chairman of the agency that regulates North Dakota's pipeline industry, said there is fear that TransCanada could scrub its plans to build the pipeline through the Midwest and instead build one through western Canada to ports on the Pacific, where the crude could be shipped to overseas markets. TransCanada had faced political pressure to let U.S. oil companies tap into the Keystone XL, which under the previously selected route would pass through or near rich oil fields along the Montana-North Dakota border. Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer had threatened to hold up Keystone's 280-mile route through his state if builders did not agree to an "on ramp" that would take domestic crude south. Sen. John Hoeven, a North Dakota Republican, also pushed for access to the pipeline. The company announced in January that it would accept crude from both states. North Dakota is the nation's No. 4 oil producer and is projected to surpass California and Alaska in the next year, trailing only Texas. Mark Lewis, a partner in the Bracewell and Giuliani law firm who represents pipeline developers, owners and operators, said any new route will be fraught with potential environmental problems. And of course, the rerouting might cost too much. "If you have to reroute it through a more developed area, that becomes more expensive just to acquire the rights of way," Lewis said. "The best place, just from a pipeline perspective, is open, rural land."
Oh great. Move the decision to beyond the 2012 election year, so as not to upset the base....and risk losing the entire thing, including the jobs that comes with it. Can Obama do ANYTHING without politics being at the root of his decision?????? Does he ever just think about the country?????? BTW, this is not about Nebraskans; they are not in play here. It's about that group who surrounded the WH last week protesting against the pipeline.
Delay is an important tool of the wacko environmentalists. When they say it will take 10 years to bring a new oil field on line they know because environmentalists are the ones holding up progrogress.
The jobs are temporary.. So you think that this pipeline should be built no matter what the states or their landholders want? Why not build the refinery in Canada or just across the US border? Tar sands oil is a very dirty product. The Canadians will have to deal with that problem eventually. Yes.. it is about Nebraskans and the Ogallala Aquifer.
The jobs would last many years, and they are generally high paying jobs. It's not as if this will be done in 6 months. Also, only some jobs would be temporary, there is still constant maintenance and upkeep on the pipeline that will remain. It's the start to the US living as an energy rich country rather than dependent nation with high unemployment.
Temporary my ass. The specific contract will not last forever, but do you know a contractor anywhere that has one "job" to work on their entire career ? Further, the pipeline will have permanent jobs assigned to its operation and maintenance. Since you started this farce of a thread, here is a map of existing major energy pipelines in the lower 48. The map above shows the existing, extensive network of energy pipelines in the U.S. with the following code: green for oil, red for gas, and blue for products such as gasoline, propane and ethylene. more: http://www.dailymarkets.com/economy...at-are-an-integral-part-of-our-energy-system/
Some of them would... Most would last less than two years. Would you build this only for the jobs if it was a mistake? Why not build a refinery just this side of the US border?
What Obama and his lib supporters hate about these jobs is that they are not funded by the federal government.
Hmm...well, would you look at that! I see a bunch of pipelines going through Nebraska. Welcome to Enviro-nut World, my Lower 48 friends! We've been having to put up with those hippy bastards for years up here in Alaska.
Why don't you read the article and follow up from there. Tar sands oil and shale oil is NOT a solution..
What is evident in the map is that many pipelines run parallel to each other, very likely utilizing the same right-of-ways. That the proposed pipeline could easily route where other pipelines already exist indicates that this issue is all politics. Obama is the sorriest lame-ass President this country ever had.
Wrong Margot, anything and everything that produces energy cheaply and abundantly is a solution. Our economy and putting people back to work is far more important than the desires of self destructive environmentalists.
Why? So we can continue to be slaves to foreign nations and their oil supply? I'd much rather expand our domestic oil industry instead.
This is a purely political decision. It is designed to keep Owebama's core -- the Hollywood set -- on side. But it has serious economic and international implications.... The decision runs contrary to what the United States official position has been to date; the pipeline was proposed to reduce the reliance on "off shore" oil and had received a go ahead when Owebama first came to office. This is seen as a turn about and has angered not only the pipeline companies but the Canadian government as well at a time when the US needs Canada in a number of multi-lateral initiatives... And those 20 thousand jobs? They will go ahead, but in Canada. The focus has already shifted and plans for a pipeline to the west coast to feed tankers bound for China have been dusted off...construction will probably start late next year... Owebama has screwed his neighbors, number one trading partner and best ally as well as the US working man for a handful of votes.....
Do you remember the oil boom and bust in Texas in the mid 1980s? Do you remember what it did to the economy? Desperate quick fixes are not always the best solution. The Alaskan pipeline is not running to capacity because of Palin's windfall taxes that killed several oil projects.
The UNIONS are for the pipeline.. The Republican landowners along the route don't want it. If it takes 20,000 workers to produce 550,000 barrels a day, they are in REAL sad shape.
Please check your facts. Who was it demonstrating AGAINST the pipeline at the White House last week...not Republicans. If I am not mistaken the Reps are all about drill, drill, drill. As to 20,000 people to build a pipeline....those are the figures Owebama has put out so I guess it's good old American technology. I notice you didn't comment on the implications of this.....I guess if its OK Canada will be selling its oil to the US number one competitor....
