Category Archives: Keystone XL

Bernie Sanders, Crude By Rail, Hillary Clinton, Keystone XL, Pipeline infrastructure, Pipeline transport

Hillary Clinton finally says she opposes Keystone pipeline, implies support for oil trains

Repost from the New York Times
[Editor:  Playing both “sides” and giving in to the supposed inevitability of crude by rail, this quote from the article: “Anticipating criticism from backers of the project that her opposition would cost construction jobs, she pledged to soon detail a clean energy policy that would put thousands of Americans to work repairing leaky existing pipelines and improving train tracks that carry oil by rail.”  See Sen. Bernie Sanders’ unequivocal view on Keystone XL.  – RS]

Hillary Clinton Says She Opposes Keystone Pipeline

By Trip Gabriel, September 22, 2015 5:35 pm ET
Clinton described some drug companies as “bad actors making a fortune off of people’s misfortune.” Photo: Gareth Patterson, Associated Press
Hillary Clinton | Photo: Gareth Patterson, Associated Press

Hillary Rodham Clinton said on Tuesday that she opposed building the Keystone XL oil pipeline, revealing her position on an issue that divides two Democratic constituencies, organized labor and environmentalists, and that she has long declined to address.

In announcing her opposition to the project, a litmus test for grass-roots environmentalists and which her rivals for the Democratic nomination had already opposed, Mrs. Clinton said that the pipeline was “a distraction from the important work we have to do to combat climate change.”

She declared her position during a campaign appearance in Iowa and on the day Pope Francis, who has challenged the world to act decisively on climate change, arrived in Washington amid a burst of attention. An aide to Mrs. Clinton said that the campaign had briefed the White House ahead of her announcement.

Mrs. Clinton said that building the nearly 1,200-mile pipeline, which would carry heavily polluting oil from Canada to refineries on the Gulf Coast, was not “in the best interest of what we need to do to combat climate change.”

Anticipating criticism from backers of the project that her opposition would cost construction jobs, she pledged to soon detail a clean energy policy that would put thousands of Americans to work repairing leaky existing pipelines and improving train tracks that carry oil by rail.

There are “a lot more jobs from my perspective on a North American clean energy agenda than you would ever get from one pipeline crossing the border,” she said.

Energy and policy experts have long said that the battle over Keystone XL is chiefly political, because the pipeline would have little effect on either climate change or the United States job market. A State Department analysis last year found the pipeline would not significantly add to carbon pollution, because the oil was already reaching refineries by other pipelines and by rail.

Asked repeatedly about the pipeline since she declared her candidacy this spring, Mrs. Clinton has said that because she initiated a review of the project while secretary of state, it was inappropriate for her to weigh in while the Obama administration studied the issue. While a member of the administration in 2010, she said she was inclined to approve it.

She declined to address the issue even when she rolled out the first phase of a plan in July to produce a third of the nation’s electricity from renewable sources like wind and solar by 2027.

“If it is undecided when I become president, I will answer your question,” Mrs. Clinton told a New Hampshire voter at the time who pressed her on the Keystone question.

She was criticized by Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, a staunch pipeline opponent, who said, “I have a hard time understanding that response.”

Last week, Mrs. Clinton moved away from her careful neutrality, telling voters that she was “putting the White House on notice” that she would announce her position shortly, “because I can’t wait.”

In a statement on Tuesday, Mr. Sanders said he was glad Mrs. Clinton “finally has made a decision, and I welcome her opposition to the pipeline.”

Environmental groups also applauded Mrs. Clinton. “Secretary Clinton’s recent clean energy proposal, coupled with her opposition to drilling in the Arctic Ocean and now to Keystone XL, is both inspiring and exciting,” the League of Conservation Voters said in a statement.

Jeb Bush, the former Florida governor seeking the Republican nomination, said on Twitter that Mrs. Clinton’s pipeline opposition means she “favors environmental extremists over U.S. jobs.”

 

Federal Regulation (U.S.), Keystone XL, Oil Industry, Pipeline transport, Tar sands crude, Tar sands invasion

NRDC video and petition: Stop the Tar Sands Invasion!

Repost from NRDC,com

Stop the Tar Sands Invasion!

Big Oil’s Plan Will Destroy Songbird Habitat, Fuel Global Warming and Threaten Our Drinking Water.


The Keystone XL tar sands pipeline was only the beginning. Big Oil has a much bigger plan to triple the production of climate-wrecking tar sands oil in Canada and send as much as 6 million barrels a day gushing into America. But this Tar Sands Invasion can be stopped — if we act now. Urge President Obama to repel Big Oil’s full-blown tar sands assault and protect our natural heritage, our communities and our climate from the dangers of filthy tar sands oil.

Make Your Voice Heard! – Sign the NRDC Petition
Your petition will be sent to:  President Barack Obama
Subject line:  Protect us from dirty tar sands oil

Dear President Obama

Thank you for vetoing the bill that would have forced approval of the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline. Now, your State Department is about to issue its final decision that will determine whether this climate-wrecking pipeline is in America’s national interest.

There is clear and compelling evidence that the Keystone XL will drive significantly more global warming pollution and more climate chaos. In short, it fails your climate test and should be rejected. In addition, piping the dirtiest oil on the planet through the heart of America would endanger our farms, our communities and our water supplies — all while worsening our dependence on fossil fuels and providing very few permanent jobs. That is absolutely not in our national interest.

Thank you for keeping your promise to veto any legislation that would have green lighted the Keystone XL. I urge you to stand strong against pressure from the oil industry and their allies in Congress by rejecting the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline once and for all.

Bakken Crude, Crude By Rail, Derailment, Explosion, Fire, Keystone XL, Oil spill, Rail routing, Tar sands crude

Federal data: Not many oil trains for Keystone XL to displace

Repost from McClatchyDC News

Federal data: Not many oil trains for Keystone XL to displace

By Curtis Tate, McClatchy Washington Bureau, April 2, 2015 
Congress Keystone
Miles of pipe ready to become part of the Keystone Pipeline are stacked in a field near Ripley, Okla, Feb. 1, 2012. SUE OGROCKI — AP

New data on crude oil shipments by rail released by the Department of Energy this week show that there are relatively few oil trains taking the path of the controversial proposed Keystone XL pipeline.

In its first monthly report on crude by rail, the U.S. Energy Information Administration shows that the bulk of oil shipments by rail are moving from North Dakota’s Bakken region to refineries in the mid-Atlantic and the Pacific Northwest.

Far less is moving from either Canada or the Midwest to the Gulf Coast, the location of 45 percent of U.S. refining capacity. Only about 5 percent of the crude oil moved by rail nationwide in January was bound for the Gulf Coast from either Canada or the Midwest.

A series of derailments has brought increased scrutiny to oil transportation by rail. Since the beginning of the year, four oil trains have derailed in the U.S. and Canada, leading to spills, fires and evacuations.

The White House Office of Management and Budget is reviewing new regulations intended to improve the safety of oil trains. They’re scheduled for publication next month.

Some supporters of the 1,700-mile Keystone project have claimed that it would reduce the need for rail shipments. The pipeline would have a projected capacity of 830,000 barrels a day, and would primarily move heavy crude oil from western Canada to the Gulf Coast.

The government’s new data confirms, however, that the primary flows of oil by rail are not to the Gulf Coast. Northeast refineries, concentrated in Delaware, Pennsylvania and New Jersey, have come to rely heavily on Bakken crude delivered by rail, and to a lesser extent, Canadian oil.

Oil trains have resulted in a 60 percent decline in oil imported to the East Coast from overseas countries, according to EIA.

Of the roughly 1 million barrels a day of oil that moved by rail in January, according to EIA, 914,000 barrels were from the Midwest petroleum-producing district that includes North Dakota, while another 130,000 barrels a day crossed the border from Canada.

In a report last month, the Energy Department projected that shipments of Canadian oil by rail could more than triple by 2016.

The mid-Atlantic region received 437,000 barrels a day from the Midwest district, and only 61,000 barrels from Canada. That’s roughly the equivalent of six or seven 100-car trains, each carrying about 3 million gallons.

Another 171,000 barrels a day from the Midwest, or about two to three 100-car trains, supplied West Coast refineries, mostly in Washington state.

The Gulf Coast region received only 107,000 barrels of oil a day from the Midwest and Canada combined. Another 107,000 barrels came from the Rocky Mountain petroleum-producing district, which includes the Niobrara region of Colorado and Wyoming.

Including oil that comes from west Texas or New Mexico, the equivalent of about three to four 100-car trains arrive at the Gulf Coast every day.

 

Air Quality, Keystone XL, Tar sands crude

EPA: Tar sands oil, Keystone XL means “Significant Increase” in Climate Pollution

Repost from Center for Biological Diversity

EPA: Keystone XL Means “Significant Increase” in Climate Pollution

Endangered Earth Online, Feb. 5, 2015

refinery_emissionsHere’s a no-brainer: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said this week that the development of tar sands oil that would be carried by the Keystone XL pipeline “represents a significant increase in greenhouse gas emissions” — the pollution equivalent of fumes spewing from 5.7 million passenger vehicles over the next 50 years.

Extraction and refinement of tar sands oil produces twice as much greenhouse gas per barrel as conventional oil. In June 2013 President Obama warned of the dangers of climate change and said Keystone would only be in the national interest if it “does not significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution.”

“The ball’s in President Obama’s court,” said Bill Snape, senior counsel with the Center for Biological Diversity. “He said he wouldn’t approve this disastrous pipeline if it significantly exacerbates the problem of carbon pollution. It’s time for him to keep his word.”

Get more from Bloomberg Business.