A political argument against the pipeline.

[Jakes Progress]

There are multiple, obvious reasons to not build the stupid pipeline. The principle argument given for doing so is jobs.

If the president is serious about not allowing it to be built, he can explain it to the nation easily. Just call on people to remember the BP disaster. The main reason given for lax oversight and sloppy regulation of drilling in the Gulf was jobs. Hundreds of jobs. Well, how many jobs were lost after the spill? How many lives and livelihoods were destroyed? A good deal more than the jobs the drilling created.

How many jobs, how much cleanup, how many lives will be affected when the inevitable pipeline disaster happens? Then we will see those who pushed for this wailing that no one could have foreseen the problems.

You don't get to have a job destroying other people's lives, other people's land, other people's jobs.

[customerserviceguy]

1. There's a big difference

between an overland pipeline, and a well that is extremely deep under the water's surface. Our abilities to deal with the BP spill were severely hampered by the technological challenges that the problem posed. Fixing a pipeline spill, especially when you're not dealing with extremely adverse conditions, is completely different.

There may have been ruptures in the trans-Alaska pipeline, I don't recall any. Perhaps that's because they were not major news. Fixing a pipeline break from the northern North Dakota border all the way down to the Gulf States would most likely be much easier. Your comparison would be considered laughable by Republicons, and I'd expect Newt to be the first one to seize on it if the President ever tried to use that line of reasoning.

[Jakes Progress]

2. Yep. You are right. That is just the kind of thing republicans say.

Why are you saying it?

Use just a little imagination. You really can't imagine a problem with the pipeline? You don't think that millions of gallons of crude pouring into a city or a river will damage it?

We were assured that we could fix any problems with drilling underwater too. Besides, they said, the gulf is so big. It won't damage anything.

Laughable are the arguments of those who try to ignore history and environment to make a few bucks. So you get a job making a hundred thou a year to watch dials. Is that worth it if it kills a school full of children? Or makes a couple of thousand acres of somebodies family farm into a toxic dump? Hmmmm. Strange priorities there.

[bigbrother05]

3. Many pipelines run from the Gulf Coast up north

Have been in place for oil and gas since the 30s and 40s, run into the NE states. While there are occasional problems with spills, etc., there is a vast knowledge base on overland operations in the US.

The real question is who will get the jobs to build the pipeline and the proper regulatory regime to monitor the construction and operation. Normally lots of union type jobs if the right to work trolls don't muck things up.

[newfie11]

7. The NE states do not have a HUGE aquifer under them

As far as jobs being created, yeah in the beginning there will be. After that pipeline is completed how many people does it take to maintain a pipeline???

Is it really worth destroying the water for 8 states?

I will tell you I lived in Mattoon IL. 20 years ago. Oil wells are common around there and have been for years.

I worked in the hospital and one day a patient asked me to refill his glass from the bedside pitcher. There was a ring of oil that had settled around the water line inside the pitcher (city water).

Our home water was from a well and you could not see the bottom of the tub as the water was yellow and smelled of petroleum (with a $10,000.00 Culligan water system installed).

In taking history from my patients EVERYONE of them had a very high family history of cancer and all fully expected to get it.

A town near Mattoon had an extremely high rate of a rare brain cancer in children.

We lived there for a year and left of western SD because of the pollution (now retired on the WY?NE border)

[Jakes Progress]

11. Anyone who wants to know the truth knows it.

The reasons for the pipeline are all financial - more money for billionaires. Supporters are those who feel they need to be ready for an administration cave in or who are in line for a bit of bribe in the form of a job that will screw others out of a job.

[lonestarnot]

22. Private money will develop the shit, and it goes through all the damn food for the country.

[eridani]

23. Oil and gas that was not a slurry consisting of mostly sand

Why in bloody fucking HELL does anyone think that sandblasting the interior of a metal pipe is a good idea?

[customerserviceguy]

13. Yes, the GOP is saying it

That's why I brought it up. It's not going to be easy to make the argument that the OP suggests the President make.

[Jakes Progress]

15. Not if you really don't want to tell the truth.

If the president wants to tell the truth, he can. The republicans are lying. We might try something different and tell the truth. It might mean a few billionaires have to wait to install gold plumbing in the guest bathroom at the summer house, but I think most people would be alright with that.

Of course the republicans are saying it. They lie. It's what they do. I just don't understand why some on DU want to pretend that the republican lies have validity.

[customerserviceguy]

18. There's a difference

between saying what the Repukes say has validity, and that it has credibility to folks who really don't want (or can't process) statements longer than a sound bite.

[Jakes Progress]

20. I could make a 30 second commercial that makes it simple.

And tell the truth. You give republicans way too much credit. You give Obama's ability to persuade way too little.

He has the ability. What I'm afraid he lacks is the will.

[customerserviceguy]

32. I'm only going on what I've seen so far

Whether its will or ability, the result is usually the same.

[Jakes Progress]

35. But the argument

wasn't whether he would try or not, but whether it could and should be done.

Did you look at the link above? This one: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-redford/keystone-xl-payroll-tax-cut_b_1156993.html

[lonestarnot]

24. Oh yes it is!

[XemaSab]

4. A cursory google search:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Alaska_Pipeline_System#Incidents

Ruptured Pipeline Spills Oil Into Yellowstone River:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/03/us/03oilspill.html

[JDPriestly]

5. No leaks in the Alaska pipelines? Let's check the facts on that.

January 2011 leak in Alaska pipeline

The Trans-Alaska pipeline system, which transports oil from the Prudhoe Bay field, was closed on Saturday following the discovery of a leak. The incident is expected to drive up oil prices, and could mean motorists face even higher costs at the pumps.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/jan/10/bp-shuts-alaska-pipeline-after-leak

July 18, 2011

A pipeline at a BP oil field in Alaska burst over the weekend, spilling between 2,100 and 4,200 gallons of an oily water and methanol mixture in Alaska's North Slope, reports Reuters and the Anchorage Daily News.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/18/bp-spill-pipeline-alaska_n_901601.html

May 25, 2010

The Trans-Alaska Pipeline, partly owned by BP, shut down on Tuesday after spilling several thousand barrels of crude oil into backup containers, drastically cutting supply down the main artery between refineries and Alaska's oilfields.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/05/26/us-alaska-spill-idUSTRE64P04U20100526

And so on.

How about 1978?

he largest oil spill involving the main pipeline took place on February 15, 1978, when an unknown individual blew a 1-inch (2.54-centimeter) hole in it at Steele Creek, just east of Fairbanks.[157] Approximately 16,000 barrels (2,500 m3) of oil leaked out of the hole before the pipeline was shut down.[152] After more than 21 hours, it was restarted.[158]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Alaska_Pipeline_System

[customerserviceguy]

14. Do you think the American public remembers any of those?

They were not in the news, at least not to the extent of the BP spill. Using the BP spill as an example of why this shouldn't be built is what I fault the OP for.

[Jakes Progress]

16. Do you mean you hope the public doesn't remember these?

A few pictures and a few words are all it takes. Of course the republicans and big oil don't want that publicized, but that is not the same as saying that nothing ever happens with land pipelines.

The republicans are lying. We don't need those lies and excuses spread here too. Obama has enough problems without a Democratic site spreading and falling for that crap.

Please try this link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-redford/keystone-xl-payroll-tax-cut_b_1156993.html

[customerserviceguy]

17. That's not what I mean at all

What I mean is that the President will have a tough case to sell if he tries to tie a veto on Keystone to the BP spill disaster, the Rethugs will simplify it the way I showed you was possible.

[Jakes Progress]

19. Oh, well. If it's going to be tough

then let's just slop up the midwest and kill off a couple dozen species. By all means, let's not do anything tough.

What you call simplifying is really lying. If they want to be simple, we can just tell the truth.

Unless you think it's too tough.

[customerserviceguy]

36. All I'm saying

is that he needs better arguments than the OP was making. If he tries to say "Keystone = BP oil leak", the Rethugs are going to eat him for breakfast. Or, he had better damn well have some really good evidence that fits within a space slightly larger than a sound bite.

[Jakes Progress]

37. Please read the OP again.

It does not say "keystone= bp"

I know you tried to make it sound that way, but it doesn't. You cling tightly to the idea that the republicans will say "ha" and the president will crumble.

Please read any of the links I and others have provided for you that demonstrates the devastation that comes from land based pipelines. Please stop saying that the argument is underwater is the same as on land.

If you want the pipeline, then go ahead and say so. If not, stop dumping on perfectly good arguments agains it. No one else has jumped on your persistent bandwagon. Maybe it's you.

[lonestarnot]

25. Yes, but not enough, so remind them.

[FreakinDJ]

8. Because the Gasoline they'll make is for EXPORT - Not even for US Consumer

Thats right - since the recession and decreased demand at the pump, American Refineries have been exporting finished product. So much so we have become a Net Exporter

So we get ALL the Pollution and NONE of the Benifits

Sounds like a good deal to me

[Luminous Animal]

27. Those jobs are a myth...

http://thinkprogress.org/green/2011/12/16/391272/myth-that-keystone-xl-creates-jobs-perpetuated-by-oil-lobby-parroted-by-congresss-oil-recipients/

"However, studies conducted independently of TransCanada find much smaller jobs numbers, far from “tens of thousands.” An oil contractor hired by the State Department reported it would create between 5,000 and 6,000 temporary jobs, while an independent study by Cornell University found it would create only 500 to 1,400 temporary jobs. Once the costs of the increased pollution and risk of oil spills is factored in, Cornell found, the jobs impact is likely to be negative. The “118,000 spin-off jobs” number used by TransCanada received two Pinocchios from the Washington Post Fact Checker: "

[customerserviceguy]

31. That's a much easier argument for the President to make

than the one that the OP wanted him to use.

[rucky]

33. FTW

[newfie11]

6. If thiis pipeline goes through, I have a farm for sale

Our drinking water and irrigation water comes from the Ogallala Aquifer. The past history of oil company's clean up abilities in the ocean and on land sucks. How they can even plan on "cleaning up" an oil spill into the Ogallala. That many miles of pipeline, you bet it will happen.
If you think prices are high right now for bread, corn, soybean, sunflower, etc products just wait.

[lib2DaBone]

9. I read somewhere.. that the oil from this pipeline is going to be sold to China..

Don't know if this is true?

If it is true.. it means that the USA gets no new jobs out of the deal... and we are still forced to buy our oil from the mid east, (while at the same time adding a new envrionmental threat.)

What a good deal, huh?

Mr. Obama will not veto this.. it's not in his character. He doesnt care about the people of the USA... that's more than obvious.

[FreakinDJ]

10. YES it is true

I work in Oil Refineries - Currently in Port Arthur Texas right now

Some times specifically on the Loading Warf where ships off load crude and back haul diesel and gas. West Coast Refineries have lots of ships back hauling Refined products to Philippines, China, Tiawan. Additionally a LARGE percentage of the Alaskan Crude finds it's way to China and Japan.

Port Arthur, Texas will be exporting to both European and Asian Markets

[lonestarnot]

26. Big oil profit up how much? Private profit up how much?

[FreakinDJ]

30. It keeps US Gas prices HIGH in times of less demand

because now we compete on a global scale for those same refined products

[Jakes Progress]

12. So they can buy more cars

to pollute even more. And power industries that take jobs from Americans and Canadians. The only people who make out on this are the billionaires and the politicians they buy off.

[Luminous Animal]

28. Yep. The jobs are a myth...

http://thinkprogress.org/green/2011/12/16/391272/myth-that-keystone-xl-creates-jobs-perpetuated-by-oil-lobby-parroted-by-congresss-oil-recipients/

"However, studies conducted independently of TransCanada find much smaller jobs numbers, far from “tens of thousands.” An oil contractor hired by the State Department reported it would create between 5,000 and 6,000 temporary jobs, while an independent study by Cornell University found it would create only 500 to 1,400 temporary jobs. Once the costs of the increased pollution and risk of oil spills is factored in, Cornell found, the jobs impact is likely to be negative. The “118,000 spin-off jobs” number used by TransCanada received two Pinocchios from the Washington Post Fact Checker:"

[lonestarnot]

21. K & R!

[Survivoreesta]

29. Nebraska's Republican Governor>

Opposes XL. Enough said!

[Jakes Progress]

34. But what does it say?