Anyone concerned about proposed Keystoneipeline?

[Byron haugh]

I'm not in favor of allowing the proposed pipeline which will carry Canadian oil to the Gulf for shipment abroad.

I believe the pipeline would cross the Yellowstone and Missouri Rivers to name only two.

That's a lot of pipeline to assume there will be no leaks/spills.

Your thoughts?
Any comments welcome, even if not precisely on this specific subject.....

[Bluegill Budd]

When the Alaska Pipeline was proposed, there were many naysayers. I was skeptical myself, but the engineering has proven itself so far. The cries of the destruction of the wildlife habitat turned out to be wrong. In fact, I understand some species have benefited from it. Now with the ?leak? on the pipeline at the Yellowstone, I await the outcome of that investigation. The engineering does not bother me as much as the fact that these endeavors are a target for the extreme environmental whackos. This becomes a situation where someone or a group of someones tries to prove a point by being the catalyst that proves it. I believe right now the proponents and opponents have based their positions on economic details rather than environmental ones and are using the environment to prove their correctness on the matter.

[tedshuck]

If they use the same sort of care that they used with the Alaska pipeline, then I agree that it should not be a major issue. The engineering that was required for the Alaska pipeline was rigorous. As someone who has spent almost 40 years working in the oil and gas business knows, this is not always the case.

The bottom line with the Keystone XL pipeline is that it will take Canadian oil to an export terminal in a more efficient manner than crossing the Canadian Rockies. They really don't have another way to market this oil. They don't need it in Canada right now and we really don't need it in the US since our oil production has been increasing. However, with the fall of oil prices to $46/bbl, it remains to be seen if it will be economic for the Canadians to produce this expensive tar sands oil even if there is a pipeline. It may be that this pipeline is obsolete before it is ever built.

Ted

[Byron haugh]

Guys,
It was my understanding they would use rail if the pipeline isn't approved?

Do you think oil will stay this low for long?

[Bluegill Budd]

Most oil that is moved now is moved by rail. The fact that the railroad are largely owned by a major Democratic supporter (George Soros) is one of the economic factors I aluded to earlier.

[okflyfisher]

Pipelines have better safety records than other means of transportation.

[bowfin47]

Now why is one more pipeline so controversial?

[fishbum]

The project will die form being studied to death. Get the darned thing built.

[Bluegill Budd]

The project will die form being studied to death. Get the darned thing built.

You are most likely correct. Unless something were to happen to drive oil prices back up to the previous levels of over $100 a barrel. Then there will be an economic incentive to make the people push the government to get it done. It would only take something along the lines of Venezuela collapsing due to their economy which is oil based to tank and the citizens to rise up against which ever ruler is in charge at the time. A hole in the present supply would give the rest of the producers an opportunity to raise the price to take advantage of the situation. We, the USA, are too short sighted to see this coming and hedge our position by having the pipeline in place to insulate ourselves from the coming crisis.

[sandfly]

anything being shipped to china or elsewhere from north America is wrong. we pay for the pipeline and do not receive anything back. ridiculous. they just had a 50,000 gallon leak into the yellow stone river from another pipeline.