Wednesday, January 25, 2012

An Interesting Article

State: 'Serious' Questions on Pipeline GOP Bill

What I find most interesting is this little bit, right about in the middle of the article: TransCanada first applied to build the pipeline in 2008, under the Bush administration.

That's not interesting because it's states it was under the Bush administration. It's interesting because of the lady with the pasture in the sandhills who testified before the state legislature. She had a letter dated 2007 from TransCanada that they were going through her pasture to dig. She wrote back that no, they wouldn't. Perhaps it would be better to move it two miles the other way. They wrote one more time saying saying no, that's not a good idea. They would have to use eminent domain and she'd just have to sit and spin. Ok, not exact quotes, but basically that idea. She went to her state reps and no one even knew about it then.

Now, either the article is incorrect in the date or there is some foolery going on somewhere. 

And then there's this bit: Project supporters say U.S. rejection of the pipeline will not stop one from being built. Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper has said Canada is serious about building a pipeline to its West Coast, where oil could be shipped to China and other Asian markets.

Hold the phone... what?! But I thought all that oil was America's! /sarcasm. So they went and admitted not a single drop of that bullshiz is supposed to be for the American economy. 

And the humor keeps on rolling: TransCanada says the pipeline could create as many as 20,000 jobs, a figure opponents say is inflated. A State Department report last summer said the pipeline would create up to 6,000 jobs during construction

*cough* 1, 500 *cough* That's what I take that to mean because we all now that the state dept. loves to exaggerate. I'm betting about 200 would be permanent. The rest temporary.

So, let's sum up questions drummed up by this article, shall we? When did TransCanada actually apply for the pipeline? How does it coincide with the date land owners were informed that they were going to be dug up? (Which is a dicey thing to do in the sandhills. It causes what they call blowouts. The dunes aren't anchored by the grass anymore and start blowing around taking over highways, fences and whatever else they feel like getting into. It's one reason why it's a bad idea to dig out there. ) Where is this oil going to? What economy will benefit from it? Chinese, Canadian, American? None, all three, only two? Are we talking permanent or temporary jobs? And what are the realistic numbers on how many of those jobs? 

Thursday, January 12, 2012

Careful, your toddler is showing.

Oh, you silly TransCanada. I thought you grew up, but then you stuck out your tongue and said "Play my way or I'm taking my ball and going somewhere else to play." As shown in the statement "It's going to go to China if we don't build it here." Yeah, one of our senators said it but it doesn't take much thought to know where he heard that statement first.

 And here I thought TransCanada said it would take too long to re route everything, yet as stated below, in a "mere few weeks" they found a new route.

Some serious spots are showing on these cats.

To further up the nonsense, they want it to look like they aren't the only ones wanting the route. I predict that Montana and North Dakota will become TransCanada's fall guys. See, it's inside your borders! It's not us. We are bowing from pressure within the states to get this built. It's not our fault, guy!

Wait for it...

TransCanada: New route for pipeline nearly done
  • Posted: January 11, 2012 at 3:57 pm   
BISMARCK, N.D. (AP) - A Canadian company attempting to build a $7 billion pipeline to carry oil from Canada to refineries along the Gulf Coast soon will have a new route that seeks to allay worries of U.S. regulators, a company executive said Wednesday.

Pourbaix and Sen. John Hoeven, R-N.D., told North Dakota officials and oil industry representatives that if the 1,700-mile Keystone XL pipeline is not built Canada's oil-sand developers likely would ship the crude to Asia."In a matter of a very few weeks we will have a route that everyone agrees on," said Alex Pourbaix, TransCanada Corp.'s president for energy and oil pipelines.
"It's going to go to China if we don't build it here," Hoven said.
The U.S. State Department in November delayed a decision on granting a permit for Keystone XL, largely because of worries about the pipeline's environmental impact, especially in Nebraska.
Pourbaix said the Calgary-based company has been meeting with U.S. regulators and officials in Nebraska on mapping a new route that will avoid the environmentally sensitive Sandhills area of Nebraska. He would not elaborate.
President Barack Obama signed into law last month a payroll tax bill that contains a Republican-pushed provision for the president to decide by Feb. 21 whether the pipeline is in the national interest.
The disputed route runs through six states from Canada to Texas. So-called feeder pipelines would connect the Keystone XL to rich oil fields in North Dakota and Montana.
TransCanada announced a year ago that it would accept crude from both states, after facing political pressure by oil companies and officials from North Dakota and Montana who had complained that development of the states' oil patches had been hampered by a lack of refineries, pipelines and rail facilities.
Hoeven said the Keystone XL would carry 100,000 barrels of crude daily from North Dakota and Montana. The pipeline would lessen truck traffic in western North Dakota, while improving prices for crude and creating jobs, he said.

Wednesday, January 4, 2012

Keystone XL Whistleblower

An editorial column by a man who has applied for whistle blower status with the US Dept. of Labor.

By Mike Klink | Posted: Saturday, December 31, 2011 11:50 pm | (13) Comments

There has been a lot of talk about the safety of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline.
I am not an environmentalist, but as a civil engineer and an inspector for TransCanada during the construction of the first Keystone pipeline, I've had an uncomfortable front-row seat to the disaster that Keystone XL could bring about all along its pathway.
Despite its boosters' advertising, this project is not about jobs or energy security. It is about money. And whenever my former employer Bechtel, working on behalf of TransCanada, had to choose between safety and saving money, they chose to save money.
As an inspector, my job was to monitor the construction of the first Keystone pipeline. I oversaw construction at the pump stations that have been such a problem on that line, which has already spilled more than a dozen times. I am coming forward because my kids encouraged me to tell the truth about what was done and covered up.
When I last raised concerns about corners being cut, I lost my job — but people along the Keystone XL pathway have a lot more to lose if this project moves forward with the same shoddy work.
What did I see? Cheap foreign steel that cracked when workers tried to weld it, foundations for pump stations that you would never consider using in your own home, fudged safety tests, Bechtel staffers explaining away leaks during pressure tests as "not too bad," shortcuts on the steel and rebar that are essential for safe pipeline operation and siting of facilities on completely inappropriate spots like wetlands.
I shared these concerns with my bosses, who communicated them to the bigwigs at TransCanada, but nothing changed. TransCanada didn't appear to care. That is why I was not surprised to hear about the big spill in Ludden, N.D., where a 60-foot plume of crude spewed tens of thousands of gallons of toxic tar sands oil and fouled neighboring fields.
TransCanada says that the performance has been OK. Fourteen spills is not so bad. And that the pump stations don't really count. That is all bunk. This thing shouldn't be leaking like a sieve in its first year — what do you think happens decades from now after moving billions of barrels of the most corrosive oil on the planet?
Let's be clear — I am an engineer; I am not telling you we shouldn't build pipelines. We just should not build this one.
Pipelines can and do stand the test of time, but TransCanada already has shown that they cannot. After working on engineering projects all over the world, I can tell you that a company that cared about safety would not follow these types of practices.
If it were a car, the first Keystone would be a lemon. And it would be far worse to double down on a proven loser with Keystone XL.
The stories of how TransCanada has bullied landowners in Nebraska rings true to me. I am living it, as well. After repeatedly telling the contractor and TransCanada about my concerns, I lost my job.
But I couldn't watch silently as a company put innocent people at risk with a haphazardly built pipeline. I am speaking out on behalf of my children and your children.
Oil spills are no joke. We need to do all we can to protect our water and our food. I am glad the Nebraska Legislature stepped up to protect Nebraskans. I can only hope that they stand up to TransCanada. We should all take a hard look at the damage that this pipeline will do. I should know; I've seen it in person.
Please do not sell out to foreign oil and foreign suppliers. There is no guarantee the product will stay in the United States, only the toxic waste. God bless the United States and those of us who still believe in the fact that her people matter.
Mike Klink of Auburn, Ind.., is seeking whistleblower protection from the U.S. Department of Labor.

Read more: