Oops: Nixing the Keystone pipeline is probably the more environmentally costly option

posted at 7:21 pm on April 9, 2013 by Erika Johnsen

Do you suppose the eco-trendy crowd really, carefully thought this one through before jumping on the self-righteously outraged bandwagon? I have some pretty severe doubts on the matter, but they’re in this thing, and they’re certainly not going to back down now that they’ve invested so much time, money, and media coverage to the issue — even though killing the Keystone XL pipeline will not prevent oil companies from developing Canada’s tar sands even a little bit. Stopping their product from moving through pipelines simply means that they’ll have to seek other markets, i.e. shipping it to China via tankers, or find another method of terrestrial transport across the continental United States, say, via rail. …And it just so happens that rail transport is more prone to the leakages the environmentalists claim to be railing against than pipelines. Oops.

A rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline by President Barack Obama would push more of Canada’s $73 billion oil exports onto trains, which register almost three times more spills than pipelines.

The March 29 rupture of an Exxon Mobil Corp (XOM). oil pipeline in Mayflower, Arkansas, provided the latest evidence for opponents citing the risk of environmental contamination in their efforts to scuttle the Keystone XL project, an almost 2,000-mile pipeline linking Alberta’s oil sands with the world’s largest refining market on the U.S. Gulf Coast. The alternative, hauling crude by rail, may be worse, said Charles Ebinger, director of the Brookings Institution’s energy security initiative. …

“The evidence is so overwhelming that railroads are far less safe than pipelines, that it would be a serious mistake to use these recent spills to say that Keystone is unsafe,” he said. …

“To the extent that we don’t approve pipelines, rail is going to become an even more critical solution. And that isn’t the most economical solution, nor is it the safest,” Peers said.

None of this is to say that either pipeline or rail is particularly unsafe — it happens all over the country, every day, and both deliver at least 99 percent of their product without incident — but in a side-by-side comparison, most signs point to pipeline as the most efficient option for oil transport.

Trying to kill the Keystone XL pipeline, everyone: Heavy on the symbolism, light on the substance. I do hope the green lobby feels free to take a bow while in the meantime they compel oil companies to use more expensive rail transport, jacking up costs that impose higher prices and depriving Americans of much-needed jobs. Bravo.

Notice, meanwhile, that the White House just keeps kicking back the expected date of their Keystone decision — we’re now looking at a September announcement, and I’ll be shocked if even that happens.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

…surprise!

KOOLAID2 on April 9, 2013 at 7:24 PM

…stupid people!

KOOLAID2 on April 9, 2013 at 7:25 PM

None of this is to say that either pipeline or rail is particularly unsafe — it happens all over the country, every day, and both deliver at least 99 percent of their product without incident — but in a side-by-side comparison, most signs point to pipeline as the most efficient option for oil transport

…the government does not know what ^ that is!

KOOLAID2 on April 9, 2013 at 7:27 PM

The whole idea is anti-industrialism, it has nothing to do with the environment, that’s just a convenient cover story

AZfederalist on April 9, 2013 at 7:28 PM

it happens all over the country, every day, and both deliver at least 99 percent of their product without incident

Well, not every train leaks. Any given train might leak or maybe crash, but the pipeline will leak; it’s inevitable. Therefor, trains are safer. /

Liam on April 9, 2013 at 7:30 PM

september???

for pete’s sake

cmsinaz on April 9, 2013 at 7:33 PM

The pipeline company just needs to offer Berkshire Hathaway some preferred stock, then miraculously obama will say “we have completed the analysis and it is better environmentally to transport oil via pipeline.” (my buddy Warren told me so.)

traye on April 9, 2013 at 7:33 PM

The pipeline company just needs to offer Berkshire Hathaway some preferred stock, then miraculously obama will say “we have completed the analysis and it is better environmentally to transport oil via pipeline.” (my buddy Warren told me so.)

traye on April 9, 2013 at 7:33 PM

…got that right!

KOOLAID2 on April 9, 2013 at 7:37 PM

Do you suppose the eco-trendy crowd really, carefully thought this one through before jumping on the self-righteously outraged bandwagon? I have some pretty severe doubts on the matter, but they’re in this thing, and they’re certainly not going to back down now that they’ve invested so much time, money, and media coverage to the issue — even though killing the Keystone XL pipeline will not prevent oil companies from developing Canada’s tar sands even a little bit. Stopping their product from moving through pipelines simply means that they’ll have to seek other markets, i.e. shipping it to China via tankers, or find another method of terrestrial transport across the continental United States, say, via rail.

excerpt: Erika Johnsen

.
It’s NEVER been about environmentalism, anyhow.

The low-level enviro-wackos who think it IS, are just useful idiots.

listens2glenn on April 9, 2013 at 7:45 PM

Where are all our fundamentalist environmental hypocrites screaming “it’s for the children.” They live their cushy lives suckling on the teat of big energy/oil while fighting to deny others the same level of comfort.

chemman on April 9, 2013 at 7:46 PM

The whole idea is anti-industrialism, it has nothing to do with the environment, that’s just a convenient cover story

AZfederalist on April 9, 2013 at 7:28 PM

.
Damn ! ….. you beat me to it.

listens2glenn on April 9, 2013 at 7:47 PM

The pipeline company just needs to offer Berkshire Hathaway some preferred stock, then miraculously obama will say “we have completed the analysis and it is better environmentally to transport oil via pipeline.” (my buddy Warren told me so.)

traye on April 9, 2013 at 7:33 PM

A few million dollars into OFA wouldn’t hurt either – after all, Teh SCOAMT is a Chicago product.

Steve Eggleston on April 9, 2013 at 7:48 PM

After the trains, the oil would go by ship to China which has far fewer environmental control than the U.S. has for the refining, distribution and use of the oil.

There are millions and millions of two-cycle engines still being used in China.

hepcat on April 9, 2013 at 7:51 PM

The State of America

VorDaj on April 9, 2013 at 7:52 PM

If the enviros were getting the money for the pipeline, they would be all for the ecological sound pipeline.

jukin3 on April 9, 2013 at 7:53 PM

But..Warren owns the railway. And we couldn’t let down such an American hero environmentalist…could we?

WryTrvllr on April 9, 2013 at 7:55 PM

Some meeting they are wondering. Oil can go by train, who knew. Time to build a paper-mache train to stop them using trains. As the pipe one worked.

They really think that once the pipeline is cancelled the oil will never enter the US. That oil is coming have it by pipeline, trains or even 30K gallon Semi-trailer trucks, one truck at a time.

tjexcite on April 9, 2013 at 7:55 PM

in a side-by-side comparison, most signs point to pipeline as the most efficient option for oil transport.

Far more efficient than loading it up on a tanker ship & hauling it 8000 miles, polluting all along the way, risking a spill all along the way.

Environmentalism isn’t about the environment.
It’s about redistribution of wealth.

itsnotaboutme on April 9, 2013 at 7:56 PM

OutRageous OutRagey,thats it,I’ve had it,
I’m gonna organize a,

Canadian Beaver March to Washington,
and then,on towards 1600 Pennslyvania Ave,

to annihilate,all trees at/on the White House Lawn!!

(snark)

canopfor on April 9, 2013 at 7:56 PM

OT. Drudge is live streaming Obama’s sequester soul show on the headline. Good on Drudge.

LOL!!

katy on April 9, 2013 at 8:01 PM

Smart Power…!

Seven Percent Solution on April 9, 2013 at 8:02 PM

They don’t care. They don’t want anything else except for us to living in huts, burning dung for heat, and using smoke signals.

Wood Dragon on April 9, 2013 at 8:08 PM

Let Canada ship the oil to China. When the Chinese burn oil, it only produces Unicorn Farts, not pollution.

The Rogue Tomato on April 9, 2013 at 8:11 PM

A rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline by President Barack Obama would push more of Canada’s $73 billion oil exports onto trains, which register almost three times more spills than pipelines.

More money for the slob Warren Buffett!

slickwillie2001 on April 9, 2013 at 8:23 PM

Unexpected!

Odysseus on April 9, 2013 at 8:25 PM

Fer krissakes…

When has a progressive ever, ever, let facts get in the way of “feelings?”

The Left feels that an oil pipeline is bad.

They feel a lot of things.

But, responsibility for their actions?

Appear to be totally numb on that score.

But, let facts get in the way of the current meme…ordained by Obama the First, the God King, the Light Giver?

Never.

It just wouldn’t feel good.

[Wonder when the knife control lobby is going to hit Capitol Hill? Seems a lot of people get hurt by a crazy guy wielding a knife.]

Maybe if somebody had a CC permit, and a loaded firearm, a lot fewer people, if any at all, would have been injured…’cept for the guy with the knife.

But, facts? Meaningless to a progressive.

coldwarrior on April 9, 2013 at 8:27 PM

The best plan is to build a Canadian pipeline to Thunder Bay and bring the oil down the great lakes in tankers

halfbaked on April 9, 2013 at 8:31 PM

halfbaked on April 9, 2013 at 8:31 PM

So long as the tankers do not transit Lake Erie…way too shallow for safe passage, ‘specially when the wind picks up.

coldwarrior on April 9, 2013 at 8:36 PM

They are not pro environment. They are anti western capitalism. Thousands of Ducks die from Chinese and Indian Pollution they do not care. One polar bear gets filmed on an iceberg and the world is ending.

Grunt on April 9, 2013 at 8:38 PM

I hope they do something soon. I can’t go into Claremore without getting stopped by either a coal train, tanker train, or container train. No over passes. Train every 10 – 15 minutes on either mainline trunk crossing tracks. If you are bleeding out and are in the wrong quadrant of town, you are out of luck. These are the tracks that get to Cushing and Texas, both BNSF and UP. We got tankers stacked up out of town and they are either petroleum going south or ethanol going north. We have had pipelines here for a hundred years. The pipeliners local 798 is in Tulsa. More leaksfrom interstate trucks than pipelines.

I know! I’m just a tool of the oil companies. After all, I do buy their gasoline. Every body go out and kick the ass of some environmentalist today and make me feel better.

Old Country Boy on April 9, 2013 at 8:40 PM

So long as the tankers do not transit Lake Erie…way too shallow for safe passage, ‘specially when the wind picks up.

coldwarrior on April 9, 2013 at 8:36 PM

Most of us who fish Erie know what you mean, but there is a deep channel.

The tankers would have to make it through the Soo locks so they can’t be any wider, or draft more than the ore boats; but all the ore boats make it to Cleveland safe enough. Plenty of Ocean going vessels make it down the lake end to end.

halfbaked on April 9, 2013 at 9:17 PM

“The evidence is so overwhelming that railroads are far less safe than pipelines, that it would be a serious mistake to use these recent spills to say that Keystone is unsafe,” he said. …

Yes, but Warren Buffet owns the railroad.

bw222 on April 9, 2013 at 9:20 PM

halfbaked on April 9, 2013 at 9:17 PM

One tanker going down in Lake Erie…well…it’d make the Exxon Valdez look like a minor oil slick. Would really prefer that eventuality not be made more possible.

Two other points…the first, Obama cannot make a decision. The second, who, among the worshipful Obamatrons stands to make the most money with Keystone being shelved?

None of this “environmentalism” from global warming/climate change to stopping evil US oil companies from producing oil for American consumption has anything to do with saving the planet. None of it.

It is all about the installation of a progressive elite who will make sure that people are entirely beholden to government, and under strict government control, lest they “hurt” themselves or others.

This is the fundamental cornerstone of Progressivism. Has been since the concept was first promulgated.

There is an old (1936) movie, starring Raymond Massey, Things to Come, based on an H.G. Wells novel, that encapsulates the entire dogma of Progressivism.

Every move made by any progressive anywhere today follows this fundamental concept.

The individual is evil.

The collective, led by an educated dedicated self-appointed elite, is holy.

Private non-progressive-owned oil companies…being allowed to make a profit?

Not on the Progressive agenda.

No matter how many people would be gainfully employed.

coldwarrior on April 9, 2013 at 9:41 PM

The whole idea is anti-industrialism, it has nothing to do with the environment, that’s just a convenient cover story

AZfederalist on April 9, 2013 at 7:28 PM

They don’t care. They don’t want anything else except for us to living in huts, burning dung for heat, and using smoke signals.

Wood Dragon on April 9, 2013 at 8:08 PM

They are not pro environment. They are anti western capitalism. Thousands of Ducks die from Chinese and Indian Pollution they do not care. One polar bear gets filmed on an iceberg and the world is ending.

Grunt on April 9, 2013 at 8:38 PM

They are anti-civilization. Period.

They believe they have “evolved” to the point where they no longer need the civilization which nurtured them, and without which probably one of them would have survived childhood. (Pre-industrial cultures have both high infant mortality rates and high childhood mortality rates, for many reasons that advanced cultures cured long ago.)

They also believe that they are “special” and “superior”, and they deeply resent having to share “Holy Mother Gaia” with all us peasants.

They also believe that they can have all the good things they like, iPhones, the Internet, etc., without any infrastructure to support them.

As such, there is no way in Hell they will ever support Keystone, or indeed any energy program that actually works. Their mindset is simple;

Civilization is evil.

Civilization needs energy to live.

Destroy all energy production.

Civilization dies.

UTOPIA!

As for what happens to most of the human race, half of them don’t believe there will be a die off. The other half, that is still obsessed with Paul Ehrlich’s farcical “Population Bomb” theory, is rooting for it. (Ehrlich has been proven wrong so many times on all his assumptions that it amazes me that enviros still have the nerve, not to mention the pig-ignorance, to keep holding him up as Holy Writ.)

In short, we are up against people who want to live in Eden, all by themselves. And don’t much care who gets it in the neck to get them there.

Just as long as it’s us, and not them.

clear ether

eon

eon on April 9, 2013 at 9:53 PM

They believe they have “evolved” to the point where they no longer need the civilization which nurtured them, and without which probably none of them would have survived childhood.

Actually, it works either way, but that’s what I meant. One of them might, just might, survive. By accident.

clear ether

eon

eon on April 9, 2013 at 9:55 PM

How much is Warren Buffet paying Obama to block the keystone pipeline?

Canadian Imperialist Running Dog on April 10, 2013 at 8:08 AM

Warren has already been paid.
The climate wacko birds are starting to push back. There is an article from some college prof in our paper every day trying to prove agw is still occurring. The latest scary story says that we will be growing grapes for wine by 2050 in NW Montana as the winters get warmer and warmer. Notice how they always project out the dire consequences so far no one who actually reads these articles will still be alive. What’s so bad about growing grapes for wine anyway?

Kissmygrits on April 10, 2013 at 9:20 AM

He simply MUST find a reason to prohibit the pipeline.

How else will he put money into Buffet’s pockets?

{^_^}

herself on April 10, 2013 at 9:50 AM

But the Pwesident loves his wittle choo-choo twains. Like $100 billion for a train from North Nowhere to South Nowhere, California.

Steve Z on April 10, 2013 at 10:06 AM

The climate wacko birds are starting to push back. There is an article from some college prof in our paper every day trying to prove agw is still occurring. The latest scary story says that we will be growing grapes for wine by 2050 in NW Montana as the winters get warmer and warmer. Notice how they always project out the dire consequences so far no one who actually reads these articles will still be alive. What’s so bad about growing grapes for wine anyway?

Kissmygrits on April 10, 2013 at 9:20 AM

The winters are getting warmer? Really? In Connecticut the ground was snow-covered until the last week of March, and the Weather Channel talked about a foot of spring snow in Missouri, and most of northern Europe was in the 20′s (Fahrenheit) for Easter.

Maybe we should ask our carbonphobic President where the cherry blossoms are hiding in Washington DC after such a “warm” winter.

Steve Z on April 10, 2013 at 10:19 AM

Do you suppose the eco-trendy crowd really, carefully thought this one through before jumping on the self-righteously outraged bandwagon?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!
Oh, that is WAY too funny!!!
Really it is!
Let me catch my breath here…..

Amendment X on April 10, 2013 at 11:36 PM