Friday, December 03, 2010

Piping up

We have been watching the issue of the TransCanada Keystone XL Pipeline with interest for the past number of months.

All along we have felt that we have been hearing from only one side on this issue, and have wondered about it.

The state group, Bold Nebraska, run by avowed Democrat and leftist, Jane Fleming Kleeb, has been the main bunch pushing against the pipeline. And of course whenever they would round up their group of “experts”, they always came from the standard set of environmental groups who frown on anything hinting of an internal combustion engine.

(And whenever you can get testimony on pipeline technology and groundwater from a Fox News talking head from Florida who was recently elected to the Hastings School Board, you do it, right?)

Well, Bold Nebraska and the rest showed their cards this week, and we can now see what their REAL beef with the pipeline is.

They hate oil and everything about it.

How do we know this?

Check out their first official TV spot on the pipeline.



Note that it is paid for by the “No Tar Sands Oil Coalition”.
Note their website is “Dirty Oil Sands .org”.
Note their emphasis over and over about how “dirty” the oil would be.

What does the cleanliness of oil have to do with a potential leak? Nothing of course.

But all we have heard in the past number of months is, oh this will blow up like the Gulf spill and will contaminate the Aquifer!

Except none of that is supported by science.

You’ve got the scientists from the hearing at the capitol in Lincoln on Wednesday who said that anything that went into the Aquifer could not do any widespread contamination.

And then there was the testimony that the pipeline would be (of course) the most advanced version of a pipeline in existence.

And then there was (thank Gaia) the point made that an above-ground or shallow-buried pipeline would be NOTHING like what is in the freaking Gulf. That was an oil platform in the middle of the sea that ran 5,000 freaking feet down. DOWN. Not a pipe across the prairie.

So sure we understand the NIMBY factor from anyone who has something they don’t understand go across their land. But when people then go on to say that the state should not take “any chances” with a pipeline, well. Then what about the pipelines that run across the rest of the state? Or those across the rest of the country, or the world? By that logic shouldn’t ALL of them be shut down?

Well, if Jane Kleeb and her minions had their way that is exactly what would happen.

Instead of getting badly needed oil -- needed to run pretty much every engine in the country -- from neighboring ally Canada, they would rather we get it from the Mideast or dictators like Chavez? Windmills are awesome and all that, but they aren’t going to run a tractor, let alone a jet engine, any time soon.

Let us finally quote UNL hydro-geologist, Jim Goecke -- who specializes in the Sandhills and its aquifers:
"When people say the whole Ogallala Aquifer is at risk, they're wrong.”
And that is the case no matter how many scare tactic ads the Sierra Club and Bold Nebraska run.

99 comments:

Anonymous said...

Great post Sweeper! To compare a perfectly safe pipeline to the Gulf oil spill is ludicrous and disingenuous. There already thousands of miles of pipeline buried in Nebraska and the Sandhills. Does Jane suggest we dig those up? This is the most highly advanced technological pipeline to date. Let's use our heads here people.

Anonymous said...

Imagine what goes on in the science classes in Hastings Public Schools. Poor Kids!

NE Voter said...

I'm as liberal as they come, but I favor the pipeline.

First, its construction will create hundreds of well-paying jobs for a sustained period of time.

Second, though there is always some risk of pipeline rupture/contamination, I find the opponents' overrelaince on this point on the hyper-dramatic side.

Look at it this way, for damn near 100 years, Nebraska farmers and ranchers have been dumping hundreds of millions of tons of fertilizers; pesticides and other toxic chemicals on this ground. Where does it go? Yup, it percolates into the aquifer.

As most folks know, the sandy soil actually filters the toxins as the percolate down toward the aquifer. Does it eradicate them completely? I doubt it. But it's safe to say that agricultural practices have exposed the aquifer to a helluva lot more stress in terms of contaminants than the propsed pipeline.

Bottom line: We need to intensify efforts to find alternative sources of energy. Sand tar oil is the worst of the worst -- its development is as environmentally destructive as it gets.

Jane Kleeb said...

Here is a list of reasons why you are wrong and still a coward for not using your real name, you give bloggers a bad rep when you misrepresent the facts:

1) Tarsands oil is the dirtiest form of oil and one of the dirtiest forms of energy. Even Forbes (not a left-wing group last time I checked) and scientists will confirm that. It emits 3 times the amount of green house gas emissions, but you probably dont think global warming exists, so that doesnt matter to you.

2) Its interesting that you don't quote what ALL the professors said at the hearings, all of them have major concerns and lots of unanswered questions, mostly about what exactly will be pumped in the pipeline. The tarsands oil is so dense its mixed with many chemicals, water and lots of pressure. No studies have been done on how that would affect the sandhills ecosystem or the Ogallala so they all said more studies need to take place.

3) One pint of oil released into the water can spread and cover one acre of water surface area and can seriously damage an aquatic habitat. It can take years for an ecosystem to recover from damage caused by an oil spill An undisputed fact. The TransCanada pipelines run at such a high pressure that a leak for just a few minuets will but over 30,000 gallons in our water or land. Its good to know you are ok with that.

4) TransCanada did not answer the basic question we have asked, citizens have asked, landowners have asked and 2 state senators asked, which is one of the reasons why Bold Nebraska opposes the pipeline--where will the oil go to? Guess what, its not guaranteed for America. So we are risking our land and water with the possibility of getting oil but the United States does not have a contract with TransCanada for the oil.

5) TransCanada's "emergency response plan" is inadequate for the rural areas the pipeline will go to if this next one gets approved. I am not ok with that. They also said the current landowners know what to do when a spill happens, we talk to landowners often and that is simply not true.

(continued in next post)

Jane Kleeb said...

6) TransCanada says it will create over a thousand jobs in our state. True, but only 10-15% will be Nebraskans despite what any spin they try to give us. That stat is from the Dept of Labor and work records TransCanada has to submit to the government.

7) TransCanada is threatening Nebraska landowners and each time a "land agent" comes to them they say something different. That comes from landowners, not us.

8) The only two people who spoke FOR the pipeline were TransCanada and a union representative. Every single landowner and citizen that got up to speak is opposed. So its also nice to know you side with a foreign company and not Nebraskans.

9) If you don't like the gulf comparison because it hit home, how about the Michigan oil spill that just happened and cost $200-300 million to clean up and where residents, landowners and experts are unsure what the long-term damage will be to their water and land.

10) Bold Nebraska is clealry opposed to the TransCanada tar sands oil pipelines, we are not opposed to all oil pipelines. We understand our country is still dependent on oil and will be for years. However, our country must focus on American-made energy if we are serious about being energy independent. Nebraska is at the heart of American-made energy with wind, bio-fuels and leading energy-efficiency programs. The basic question that must be answered, not only by Sec. Clinton, but by our state Senators and our Governor, is this...is this pipeline in our national interest? When you look at the reports and listen to Nebraskans the answer is simple, no.

The pipelines are great for TransCanada's bottom line. But as a citizen of the United States and a resident of our state (even though you hate that I am), I care more about our land, water and economic activity than I do a foreign company's profit margin.

Its just too bad you care more about a foreign company, a source of energy that is not American-made and that you care more about protecting politicians who are in bed with TransCanada.

I will stand with Nebraskans and our natural resources that sustain our #1 economic activity over a foreign company any day.

W.J. Clinton said...

I'm all for laying some pipe in Nebraska.

Street Sweeper said...

Jane,

You said it all (but of course waited until the very end) in your last point:

This is all about your hatred of oil and oil companies. All of the rest about the pipeline is a distraction because you don't like this alternative fuel source to Mideast oil.

And please save us your "we like some types of oil". If it wasn't this oil, it would be another oil or it would be nuclear or whatever the latest fad to protest was about. You're all about the protest.

And anyone (YOU'VE proven it) can testify at a hearing. We will listen to the scientists on this, thanks.

Oh and congrats on the school board win.

SS

GeosUser said...

A singularly unimpressive analysis from Miss Ivy Starnes, aka Jane Kleeb. Have you ordered your Nissan Leaf and erected a solar/wind generation array to recharge it yet? Or are you still relying upon your flying broom to get around accompanied by the flying monkeys from BoldNE? Your supposed concern and outrage is so transparently tied to your income via Dick "George Soros" Holland and environmental wackos that you have zero credibility on this issue...or any other for that matter.

Tampa Two said...

Ask the people of Nebraska who already have TransCanada pipes running through their backyard. The company is efficient, non-invasive, and compensate the landowner pretty darn well.

But hey, you're against giving money to foreign companies, so you buy ALL your goods from American-made companies, right?

Kleebobotomy said...

JANE KLEEB, you hate American oil like one who hates obesity might stab their own fat family members, in the name of health, to make them thin. I'd think you were stupid if not for your oddness.

Are you normal? You just wrote 760words in a blog to call other citizens cowards and justify your self. You are supposed to be politically smart, a pundit. Your husband ran for public office. But you go on a blog under your name and bash citizens for disagreeing with you.

Such an inflated ego in one so so devoid of politic sense suggests pathological narcissism. Get that checked. Or continue to entertain us. People as nutty as you are generally of great help to whomever opposes whatever you advocate. So, thanks for that.

Anonymous said...

I'm pretty sure Jane drives a Toyota SUV. Maybe she wants the US refineries that are paying Transcanada to deliver the oil to Houston to sell it to Japan...

Anonymous said...

Malinda Frevert says...
1st: Yes, I work for Bold NE and with Jane. I'm sure you'll use that to attack my credibility even though you know little else about me, so good for you.
2nd: I think it's great that none of the respondents have been able to dispute the facts that Jane laid out in her comments. You haven't countered anything she said, just attacked her character so I'll assume you agreed with her facts.
3rd: How nice that you can all remain anonymous and lambast activists and landowners of this state from the safety of your computer screens. Your courage is truly inspiring and becoming of our great state.

Street Sweeper said...

"Melinda",

Noted that you still signed in with "Anonymous". Hmm. Oh, and the fact that you announced your name, yet no one knows you or cares, really proves the point of announcing your name, doesn't it?

And Jane or you or anyone else can write a comment that says, "Ludacris was the first Emperor of South Sioux City". But -- hint hint -- just b/c no one bothers to refute it, don't make it so.

For instance, the Unions vehemently disagree with her job-creating views on the pipeline. But you don't need a union card here to refute that.

(Oh and by your logic, I see that Jane AND YOU agree with my last comments. So, thank you.)

And thanks for reading Malinda.

Anonymous said...

I am amazed at the personal attacks by these bloggers. I support BoldNebraska.
I wonder why Transcanada refuses to consider putting their proposed pipeline next to another one that does not cross the aquifer. Instead, thy spend big money trying to convince Nebraskans that the pipeline will cause no damage.
China buys US auto companies, Canada runs pipelines through our country, and we are no longer powerful enough to stop it.

Anonymous said...

Personally, I'd rather get the fuel we need from someone who isn't sponsoring terrorism, and am proud that Nebraska can play a small part in that happening...

Anonymous said...

Jane or anyone that knows - What was the status of the Environmental Assessment? Or is it still ongoing? The results should give us some idea of which way the Dept of Interior, et. al. will lean. Anyone?

There is no denying the potential environmental effects, and there is no denying the economic and political benefits of having North American oil instead of Middle Eastern oil. I guess I am going to wait to see what the biologists, environmental scientists, hydrogeologists, etc. have to say about it before picking a corner - the talking heads aren't enough at this point.

Anonymous said...

NEVoter, you have sold out to big oil and labor. The labor groups who support this for "jobs" will be sadly disappointed to see how few locals are hired. Most are coming from elsewhere.

Your logic that decades of agri- ecoterror practiced by the farmers who continuously pour on herbicides and pesticides (and some of whom probably in the past dumped their used equipment oil) in Nebraska somehow legitimizes this pipeline's inevitable leaks is flawed, too. Even if you were correct, two wrongs don't make a right.

Pipelines leak, NEVoter. They leak all of the time. Here's a few very recent examples (from small scale to large scale- I could go on and on but will spare you the humiliation):

Chevron Utah June 2010: 500 barrels of crude into the Red Butte Creek, wreaking havoc on waterfowl and other species. It leaded again Wednesday December 1, another 100 barrels.

Enbridge Michigan Pipeline August 2010: 820,000 barrels of crude spilled into the Talmadge Creek and Kalamazoo River, killing countless fish and other wildlife. This one could cost nearly $70 million to "clean up."

Shell Louisiana Pipeline November 2010, 1,100 barrels of crude spilled about 150 yards away from the Intercoastal waterway.

NEVoter, the Ogallala Acquifer is worth fighting for and this battle is just beginning. In Texas, they're fond of saying, Remember the Alamo! They had Davy Crockett's brave stand against Mexican Army General, Santa Anna. Well, in Nebraska, we have "Remember Boyd County" and we have then Governor Ben Nelson to thank because he had the guts to stand for Nebraskans and to stand for protecting Nebraska's environment and its wetlands. (Heck, Nebraska was even able to pay painlessly absorb the costs of getting out of that horrible deal through funds Governor Nelson had the fiscal smarts to save up).

Now, Nebraskans, it's time to stand up to TransCanada, Big Oil and the Labor Bosses and their arrogant, draw a line on a map, environment be damned attitude. Whether we "win" this battle or not, we will expose those like you who have cavalier and laizze faire attitudes on this matter because you obviously don't really care about Nebraska's environment or one of its Holy Grails.

Oh, and by the way, this issue has nothing to do with whether you believe yourself to be "liberal" or conservative.

Anonymous said...

@ 9:20: "I wonder why Transcanada refuses to consider putting their proposed pipeline next to another one that does not cross the aquifer."

Three words: money, money, money!

NE Voter said...

Anonymouse 9:28

Sigh.

The breathless type of arguments you make is what most hurts the cause of environmentalism -- a cause I support.

Everyone who follows L-ST knows that I am perhaps the most unashamedly outspoken liberal on this blog. However, I live in the world as it is, not how I wish it would be.

The USA and the industrialized world are addicted to petroleum. This is a fact. The emissions from these fossil fuels are undeniably harming our environment and contributing to and accelerating global climate change, to the great detriment of the quality of life for people all over the world. Notwithstanding the caterwauling of climate change deniers, these, too, are facts.

Our problem in the USA is that our govenment has tacitly promised to keep the price of energy unrealisticly LOW. Nations around the world rightfully tax the Bejezus on the stuff. A policy that I fervently believe the USA should support.

Cheap oil/gas only exacerbates and enables our addiction.

Here in the real world, the problem is that oil and gas are good s--t in terms of the energy bag for the buck. Finding a truly equal or superior form of energy is the holy grail. I hope I live to see that day. For my children, your children and every child in the world.

By the way, I support Bold Nebraska and have no problem with the work it's doing on this issue.

Have a great weekend.

Oh, and let's beat OU.

Tampa Two said...

Where was all the anti-oil, anti-TransCanada rhetoric when the FIRST pipeline went in several years ago?

And keep consuming all your foreign-made goods while you pound away on your Toshiba laptops.

Just wondering...have any of you against the pipeline ever BEEN to western NE (and no, Hastings does NOT count as western NE...that's central NE) other than driving on I-80? Talk to some of them. The majority of them I've talked to over the years are in favor of the pipeline.

Anonymous said...

I had the hearing streaming live while I was working and thought from the testimony that things weren't going well for BoreUsToDeath Nebraska and Jane. The University profs at best gave both pros and cons. There was no stellar, shining "expert" who came out on definitively on BN/Jane's side. Ask Jane about her friends, the Bosselmans. Aren't they connected to some oil?

Anonymous said...

Earlier this year Jane was calling for putting a stop to the pipeline. Now she has to change her tune when even the experts don't back her up. Her latest line is to get regulations of pipelines in Nebraska so she can have a bill(s) in the Legislature which she will probably charge poor Dick Holland lobbying fees for. Doesn't that guy know when he's snookered?

Anonymous said...

I am laughing at anonymous poster, NE Voter's name calling "anonymouse" comment. I personally don't care how people post, but NE Voter is really no less of an anonymouse or posting coward (if name calling is your game) than anyone else who doesn't use their real name

NE Voter said...

10:03

Just . . . wow.

Grundle King said...

For Malinda's benefit, I'll take a stab at addressing Jane's points:

1) Yes, tar sand oil is dirty and creates more greenhouse gases.

2) It's interesting that you don't quote ANY of the scientists who allegedly oppose the pipeline.

3) The pipeline is buried, so why are you bringing up surface water? Furthermore, couldn't ANY oil pipeline, regardless of the source, be capable of that type of pollution? This kinda gets back to the idea that you're opposed to ALL oil.

4) You're right, the oil is not guaranteed to go to America, or Canada. It goes to the highest bidder, much like the rest of world's oil. However, if the export of oil means more income for our country, isn't that a good thing?

5) Why is the plan "inadequate"? You can't just claim inadequacy without some sort of evidence.

6) It stands to reason that, because Nebraska isn't the only state the pipeline will cross, 100% of the jobs won't be in Nebraska. Duh.

7) If this is true, then indeed, that's wrong. Landowners should not be coerced into giving up the rights to their land by a foreign-based private entity.

8) The fact that only TransCanada and union reps spoke for the pipeline means nothing. Even if folks express support for the pipeline, they aren't going to show up at a hearing to be cheerleaders for an oil company, because those companies have their own paid spokespersons to do that.

9) The Gulf oil spill comparison doesn't hit home, because it's not even a valid comparison. The Michigan one is better, and correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't the company be responsible for clean-up costs? In that case, wouldn't the $300 million figure just warm your heart, knowing the oil company has to pay that out? BTW, nice use of the mystery factor...they don't know what the long-term effects will be, because they don't know if there will even be any long-term effects.

10) The 'not opposed to all pipelines' thing is a lie, as demonstrated in point #3. Yes, alternative energy is good, but oil is still needed in the here and now. As for the question of our best interest...what reports? Which Nebraskans? Just the landowners? Which ones?

Your own tagline on the issue, "Windmills, not oil spills" pretty much says it all.

I agree we need to become less dependent on oil, but until windmills start cranking out fairy-farts to power my vehicle, I'm afraid we're stuck with petro.

BTW, when you start pointing your finger at politicians for being 'in bed' with big money...remember you've got 3 fingers pointed back at you.

Anonymous said...

I wonder if Bold, Sierra Club, etc. will provide 1000 jobs to Nebraskans as this pipeline will. Maybe they could write a check for $7 billion dollars to build wind turbines....It'll never happen and the more I hear from them the more I move to the right.
They just wanna kill job creation. And Im starting to think that Johanns and Nelson are more worried about politics then creating jobs. 6 months ago Johanns was in favor of this project and now hes against it..wonder if that has to do with the fact that Hillary Clinton said she was leaning towards signing the permit??????????

Anonymous said...

Can someone give me a reason why this pipeline couldn't be built parallel to the existing Keystone pipeline? It would keep it out of the Ogallala aquifer which is my main objection to the pipeline. Seems to me that TransCanada wants to save $$$ by routing in a straight line, damn any obstacles in the way.

Gerard Harbison said...

Tarsands oil is the dirtiest form of oil and one of the dirtiest forms of energy.

I'm a scientist. The word 'dirty' has no scientific meaning. Try again.

It emits 3 times the amount of green house gas emissions, but you probably dont think global warming exists, so that doesnt matter to you.

I do think AGW exists, but facts matter to me. And this is unadulterated crap. The NRDC estimates tar sands petroleum emits, well-to-wheel, about 100 -110 g CO2/MJ, as opposed to 93 g/MJ for regular gasoline or diesel.

Gerard Harbison said...

Nebraska is at the heart of American-made energy with wind, bio-fuels and leading energy-efficiency programs. The basic question that must be answered, not only by Sec. Clinton, but by our state Senators and our Governor, is this...is this pipeline in our national interest?

And just to extend my criticism of Ms. Kleeb's remarks, wind is uneconomic without heavy government subsidies, is never going to be more than a bit-player in the total energy picture, and won't run your car. Ethanol from corn is marginal from an AGW standpoint, and you save only slightly more in CO2 emissions than you generate in producing it. And it's also heavily subsidized.

There are no near- or medium- term alternatives to oil.

Anonymous said...

Well Played Professor, Well Played!

Anonymous said...

Malinda, you appear to be young and idealistic. You may get paid decently since Holland's money funds your group but it's probably a mere pittance compared to what Jane takes for her salary. At some point you will become disillusioned with being the work horse while Jane gets to be the show pony, for a lot more bucks. You will then come to the realization that people like Jane use people like you to further their own position in life and it has very little to do with ideology or causes. Bottom line,like all good liberals, the Kleebs like money and they've found a way to ride the government subsidy and sugar daddy train all the way to the bank.

Anonymous said...

Methinks Ms. Kleeb jumped on this ridiculous "issue" just for the "Press" that it is giving either Scott or herself.

First off trying to spin this pipeline as a potential danger like the BP disaster is just plane stupid & Bold Ne needed to hire someone with a brain to dream up realistic concepts to try to Scare the public off of this project & future project that might have merit.

Don't get me wrong though, as I'm an ultra Progressive but I'm not so much so as to think that we can dump Oil, dirty or clean, over nite! Besides I love my Prius even if it only get 51 mpg in the Summer & 40 in the Winter!

Anyway if she really had any interest in the long term ecological state of the state or the world, she would have done a lot better in getting NE off it's lame ass to start building wind energy farms. This state is so backward it's mind boggling when compared to Iowa for example.

The bottom line is, Kleeb made a big mistake using this pipeline issue for her or Scott's PR mill. Just like lamo Tom White trying to accuse Lee Terry of a tumble in the hay with a stray, without live video to back it up, cost him more votes then one can imagine. But then I always say; If a Pol is dumb enough to listen to a Stupid political Con-sultant, then they don't deserve to get the job!

The Kleeb's have got some serious back peddling to do because using this non issue for PR is going to cost them Bigtime!!!

Anonymous said...

Jane and Brad Assford are the two smartest humans on earth. Just ask them.

Anonymous said...

Google Gerard Harbison

Macdaddy said...

This is a no-brainer issue for Bold Nebraska. They can be seen as standing up for the little guy at no cost to Nebraskans as all benefits of the pipeline are in the vague future. In addition, at some point in the future, their prediction of an oil spill that will cost X-amount of money to clean up and kill some fish has a chance, albeit very small, of coming true. In the meantime, they will continue to fly here and there, drive here and there, all the while busily texting on their plastic electronic devices. They are the equivalent of an animal activist wearing a fur coat.

Anonymous said...

I would think Bold Nebraska would actually be happy about this pipeline, as opposed to another pipeline running right next to the first one. Look at the map...the proposed pipeline would be hundreds of miles shorter, which means much less pipe, which means much easier to localize if there actually is a spill.

Carla Weakly said...

I find this blog to be an attack on Bold Nebraska and Jane Kleeb, more than a fair and balanced report. I wonder why people other than Jane and her staff don't post their actual name by their comments if they are so smart and correct. I do not favor the pipeline for many reasons. The two top reasons are the Sandhills, which many people who are not from the region do not understand the environmental damage that even laying pipeline there could do. The other huge reason is simply the water. This blog can say all the lies and disturbing other attacks, but means little to me if it is just cowards who post and won't say who they really are.
carla Weakly

Street Sweeper said...

Carla,
I can't tell you how much it means that you wrote "Carla Weakly". Now we all can sleep.
And thanks for doing just what Jane's Facebook post told you to do.
We welcome the new traffic!
-Ed.

Anonymous said...

For those of you who don't know, the original Street Sweeper was Jordan Mcgrain but has been taken over by Jen Rae Hein.

Gratuitous RWP Bash said...

Dog Killer!!!!!

I’ve grown so accustomed to reading a nonsensical personal attack of RWP after he crushes liberal rhetoric with fact and logic. Not seeing any (good) ones after his latest ‘smack down’, I thought I’d borrow these scathing words of Aunt Edna to Clark W. Griswold.

Anonymous said...

There is a great alternative to that "dirty tar sands oil" inside the USA and wouldn't require a new transcontinental pipeline route. The source is oil shale in the Rockies and the oil produced could be shipped to market in new pipelines laid in the right-of-way of existing natural gas pipelines to the West, East and South.

I'm sure Mrs. Kleeb would be 100% supportive of tapping this vast domestic source of "clean" crude oil. One small caveat, it will require lots of water (for steam injection), lots of drilling, lots of fracing and probably portable nuclear-powered steam generators. I'm sure Mrs. Kleeb wouldn't have any problems with that approach.

Macdaddy said...

Maybe all you Bold Nebraskans should be putting pressure on Obama and the State Department over this. They're the ones who approved this and aren't they your peeps? I don't hear you griping about them. I bet you spend more time busting Sweeper's chops than you do calling the White House. While you're at it, be sure to criticize the liberal members of the Supreme Court for expanding eminent domain in the Kelo ruling that allows TransCanada to threaten landowners.

Street Sweeper said...

1:09,
Thanks. I was wondering about that.
Though I think the kids at Bold Neb(raska) might beg to differ these days...

Grundle King said...

Re: Macdaddy @1:29,

Because, when the liberals said they would "hold his feet to the fire" after Obama's election, what they really meant was "gratuitously kiss his arse until our lips fall off".

Gerard Harbison said...

The two top reasons are the Sandhills, which many people who are not from the region do not understand the environmental damage that even laying pipeline there could do.

Very little of the proposed route through Nebraska is through bona-fide Sandhills; just a short tract near Wheeler.

Mark Welsch said...

Who is the uninformed person who wrote this blog? They should have been at the public hearing in Lincoln this week. You would have heard a top person from TransCanada say that their pipeline can leak no more than 1% of the oil without their computer system detecting that leak. Well, unless their computer has a problem. But hey, we can trust computers can't we? Or, have you had to reboot your computer because of a problem? All computers can have problems like that.

The pipeline could pump 900,000 barrels of the dirtiest oil on the planet every day. A leak of less than 1% of that could be 8,999 barrels leaking undetected, directly into our drinking and irrigation water every day until someone sees it bubbling up from the ground, or covering a wet-meadow, lake or river.

We need more pipelines in Nebraska, and bigger ones too, but they should be standing up in the air about 300 feet with a wind generator at the top.

I'm proud to stand behind what I say. I'm not a coward who won't post their name on this website.

Mark Welsch from Omaha

Marlboro Man said...

Miss the limelight Mark? Found a new cause have we?

Not Mark said...

I guessed you missed my press conference announcing that I do not miss the limelight.

Anonymous said...

Do the Bold people know that Nebraska produces about 2.2 million barrel of oil a year? At one point in the early 60's Nebraska was producing 25 million barrel a year. Well, almost all the production is in the Southwest region of the State. It is also on top of the Ogallala Aquifer. It would be much easier to fix a pipe that is three feet underground than a pipe goes about three thousand feet down.

The problem with BP was that it was to deep to fix in a reasonable time. What happen to all oil that was leaked into the ocean. I have not heard much about it lately.

Also, what about all the gas and natural gas lines that run across Nebraska? How does gas get across the Missouri river to the gas depot by Epply? Is it because those line are owned by Northern Natural Gas, which own my Warren Buffet a Democrat?

Gerard Harbison said...

Meanwhile, in Wisconsin, an environmental group has been fighting a wind farm slated to be sited 2 miles from Horicon NWR because of the carnage they anticipate it will cause to....the sandhill crane population!

Gee, I wonder would that be an issue for wind turbines in the Nebraska Sandhills? Hey, why do they call them sandhill cranes, anyway?

Bananas* anyone?

* Build absolutely nothing anywhere near anything

Macdaddy said...

When Al Gore tears down all his mansions or rents them out to families, 2 or more people to a room, I will oppose this pipeline. But until then, fire up the Hummer, Mabel! Time to go get the mail from the mailbox!

Mabel said...

Macdaddy -
So you are setting the limits of your behavior on the examples set by Al Gore? Remind me not to accept a invitation to give you a massage.

Mabel said...

And no I will not be "firing up the Hummer"

Gerard Harbison said...

What happen to all oil that was leaked into the ocean. I have not heard much about it lately.

Bugs ate it.

The gulf is full of natural oil seeps, and so there are always plenty of hydrocarbon metabolizing bacteria around. When the big leak happened, the pseudomonads thought it was Christmas. First they gobbled up the natural gas, and then when that ran low, they turned on the oil.

Years from now, the old geezer pseudomonads will be boring the heck out of the young sprats with tales of the Giant Feast of 2010.

Macdaddy said...

Come on, Mabel. Don't do me like that. You know've treated you right.

Anonymous said...

For all you right wing IDIOTS who want the pipe line to go through the Sandhills. You are just plain crazy. If you lived in the Sandhills you would know. It is the only thing that both Republicans and Democrats who live in the Sandhills agree on. None of them want it it in the Sandhills. If you nuts want one so bad build it in your back yard. If not stay out of our yards. Personally I would be in favor of building it through any where RWP lives.

Anonymous said...

Anon 5:23

There are already pipelines that go through the sandhills. There is also drilling in Southwest Nebraska on top of the aquifer.

Anonymous said...

yo yo yo 5:23. I live in the Sandhills and you are wrong! In the Sandhills we use our brains. There are already pipes buried here. no problems thus far. All you enviros need to to understand that we don't take orders from rich elite liberals in Omaha. (Dick Holland)

Gerard Harbison said...

If you lived in the Sandhills you would know.

If you lived in the Sandhills you would know it's cutting across only a tiny corner of the Sandhills. If you lived in Mullen, the nearest section of the pipeline is over 100 miles away, as the crow flies.

Anonymous said...

YO Yo,Yo, we anti pipe line sandhills folks don't take orders from rich corrupt foreign oil companies. If you have ever been to a meeting in the sandhills you would know that lots of people both republican and democrat don't want the pipe line. For the RWP fool. You get some oil in the water by Wheeler it won't be long before it is in Mullin. I can't believe you call your self a scientist. We are going to stop the piple line . This is not something we are going to let you ruin. It is our HOME!!

Anonymous said...

6:07, you are right about Gerard Harbison calling himself a scientist. He tends to place ideology over science. For example at 3:52 he claims that bugs ate the Gulf spill oil. Hate to disagree with someone who has academic credentials, but ABC's Nightline ran a report Thursday night examining an area near the spill in a U.S. Navy's deep-ocean research submersible. One of the quotes: "We're finding it everywhere that we've looked. The oil is not gone, It's in places where nobody has looked for it." Google to read the whole thing to make your own decision as to whether "bugs ate it".

Anonymous said...

Better be careful, Malinda. If you steal too much limelight or commentary from Jane, she will get envious and take it out on you. Just remember, kiss her butt and tell her that's she's smart and wonderful everyday, and do as she tell you. Then you can bask in the glory of Jane giving you a pat on the head. Just ask all the people who worked with her before. Let's just say she was not well liked and was close to being booted out by SEIU because of her witchy behavior.

Quite frankly, Jane wouldn't be making this her next big project if she wasn't able to rake in big bucks from sugar daddies and the Sierra Club, that allows her play behind her computer most of the time. Of course, getting trips to rub elbows on a regular basis in DC also is a good thing for her. Whatever benefits her.

Gerard Harbison said...

Here's a big clue, AnonCow @7:28. 'Nightline' is not a scientific journal. Get back to me when you have a credible source.

Gerard Harbison said...

Bud

(1) If you're going to try to pass yourself off as 'Sandhills Boy', learn to spell 'Mullen'

(2) The g.d. pipeline passes closer to my house than yours (and that's not very close to either of us). So lose the 'our home' crap.

Anonymous said...

GH, a University of Georgia professor was on the submersible reporting on her findings. Sorry it has to be in a scientific journal before you will accept facts as facts. Plenty of other reports showing oil existence and damage. Just not as visible because of the dispersants that BP used (one that is banned in the U.K.). So just repeat after me: ideology before science, ideology before science, ....

Gerard Harbison said...

None of this is showing on a Google search, anon cow @ 8:34. I think you're making it up.

I haven't seen any science from you. Just 'here's something I saw on Nightline last week.' When you have anything, anything at all, get back to me. Name of the UGa professor, even?

Anonymous said...

For a UNL professor, you sure have problems using the Google. Her name is Samantha Joye. Just go to ABC News's Nightline site. There are plenty of other reports. You just choose to ignore them. I will agree that the BP spill is not the best argument against the Keystone pipeline. However the Michigan and Utah ones are. And for your info, Bud doesn't live in Mullen. He does lives quite close to the proposed route.

Anonymous said...

Anon 5:23

Well, those of us who live in the city have pipeline that run in our back yards. I can remember several house that have been blown up from bad natural gas lines.

Anonymous said...

Word on the street is that daddy dick holland may be pulling funding for bold soon...

The backlash created by jane and her minions has been having a negative effect on his other project...

Let's just say her future is not bright.

Anonymous said...

"Bugs ate the oil".

That might be a good entry for "The Gerard Harbison Files".

Anonymous said...

So many haters...

Gerard Harbison said...

Oh yeah, Mandy Joye.

" The global appetite for oil and gas is driven by each one of us," says Joye. "And until each one of us changes our attitude, it's not going to get any better."

Yup, no ideology there. Just science. Snicker.

Gerard Harbison said...

AnonCow@10:16

What exactly is your problem? Bacterial degradation of hydrocarbons has been known for a century. There are huge microbial communities in the Gulf living off oil seeps.

Educate yourself!

Gerard Harbison said...

The Keystone XL pipeline's closest approach to Valentine in Nebraska is 50 miles, at the NE-SD border between Colome SD and Paxton, SD. It comes within 40 miles of Lincoln, in Saline Co. SW of Wilber. And I live a lot closer to it than that.

So what kind of hysteria is this? 'Waah, they're going to put an oil pipeline 50 miles away from me!!!"

Anonymous said...

Farmers spew tons of poisonous fertilizer onto the land above the aquafer because that brings them millions of dollars in crops.

Oil companies have millions of dollars worth of oil that they aren't about to throw away.

So, Kleeb is telling us what? That oil companies are eager to lose money? That if they have a ruptured pipeline they have to do something other than turn a valve to "off"?

These Kleeb people strain at gnats while swallowing herds of camels.

If environmentalists like these are the "doctors" we need to save our world, mother earth is doomed.

Anonymous said...

GH at 10:31, does her view on society's demand for oil and gas have anything to do with her observations near the spill site? Did it change her vision? Some of us are able to make rational, unbiased observations and derive conclusions from them without letting ideology completely twist our findings, sometimes to the opposite of the truth. As a chemistry professor I would hope this is true for you, but I'm beginning to have doubts.Bacterial degradation of hydrocarbons is happening, but it is not the silver bullet you make it out to be. "Bugs" will not be eating all of the oil, and not before severe ecosystem destruction.

Anonymous said...

8:42, let me explain a fact of life to you. Corporations and their management have a prime directive to maximize profits. Unfortunately the market's judgment skews to the short-term, not long-term. Like BP, short-cuts are often rationalized because of the profit push. No one expected the rig to blow, but cut enough corners and the result is an unplanned, unexpected disaster.

Roger Snowden said...

The BP well is 5,000 miles beneath the sea? Isn't that approaching the Earths' core or something?

Scott Lautenbaugh said...

Good point, Roger. Any deeper and it would have been easier just to ask the Chinese to plug it.

Street Sweeper said...

Miles/feet.
Iceberg/Goldberg.

Anonymous said...

9:35 p.m.
See Dick
See Jane
See Dick write checks
See Jane talk
See Dick write more checks
See Jane talk
See Dick stop writing checks
See Malinda on unemployment
Who's Malinda?
Doesn't matter, see Jane land on feet
See Jane call Warren
See a pattern?

Anonymous said...

Bye-bye soon-to-be-former Mayor Suttle

Anonymous said...

Anon 2:22- It's "than", not "then", Einstein.

Otherwise, kudos for a great post.

(Seriously.)

(What? I'm being sincere.)

Gerard Harbison said...

I think her views on oil drilling probably do affect her views on the environmental damage, yes. You base your expectation of long lasting environmental damage on what? Given the Gulf naturally seeps a whole lot of oil, why would you expect this event to have unusual consequences, especially given other scientists observing the site don't report substantial long lasting effects?

Anonymous said...

Dear Sweeps -

You have made me so very, very happy by opening up the subject of the Keystone XL, whereby The Janiac can barf up all of her nonsense and be held to much public ridicule. Because she cannot help herself, because...She's a Janiaaac, Janiaaac on the floor, and she's dan.... Oh. Sorry.

Also, I am very pleased to see that Mr. Holland might cut off her funding. I hope that is a true rumor and she and the Mister Jane go away. For good. For ever.

Love,

Lizzie

Anonymous said...

GH, there is an 80 square mile dead zone. Any ideological bias will not affect that observation. Sure, there is a natural seepage of oil on the Gulf floor, but it is not concentrated in both area and time as the BP spill was. You're trying to compare apples and oranges. If you are so sure that "biases can affect views" then I hope you realize this is also true of a certain chemistry professor.

Grundle King said...

You got that, Gerard?! You're not allowed to compare apples to oranges! Only Jane Kleeb and her liberal ilk can compare apples to oranges!!!

Gerard Harbison said...

Anonymous Coward @10:09. There's a dead zone EVERY year in the central Gulf. Fertilizer use (including that from corn-based ethanol production) flows into the Gulf from the Mississippi, causes eutrophication, and as a result an oxygen-free zone.

The dead zone area this year is over 7000 square miles, far larger than the BP dead zone you're claiming, and it completely contains it. Scientists who study the annual dead zone claim there is no way to link this year's dead zone with the oil spill, either positively or negatively.

So take your aspersions about my scientific objectivity and shove them in your blowout preventer.

Anonymous said...

I know all about the dead zone caused by fertilizer runoff, GH. So the dead zone surrounding the BP spill site had nothing to do with the oil? That's some objective thinking! Dr. Joye (the one you are convinced is biased) took core samples and found oil only at the top indicating she is not seeing natural seepage. Must have been biased samples. I know that your ideology forces you to minimize BP's impact on the environment, but your view is definitely an outlier.

Gerard Harbison said...

I know all about the dead zone caused by fertilizer runoff, GH.

Then why did you claim an 80 sq. mile dead zone from the spill, when in reality there's a >7,000 sq. mile annual dead zone there, as there has been (more or less) for the last 20 years, and the scientists who have been studying the dead zone over an extended period say there's no way of telling how the oil-spill contributed to current hypoxia in the Gulf?

You can make all the accusations of bias you want. You're simply using ad hominem< because you have no facts to back your assertions.


So the dead zone surrounding the BP spill site had nothing to do with the oil?

The experts who have been mapping the dead zone for the last 20 years say there's no way to tell how the spill contributed. What we do know is there's a dead zone in the central and western gulf every year.

Anonymous said...

GH, it would take you all of 30 seconds using the Google to find out that the 7,000 square mile dead zone caused by fertilizer runoff is mainly in shallow waters of the Gulf. The BP spill area is not in this zone. This is a fact that contradicts your assertion. Seems that my aspersions about your scientific lack of objectivity are being backed up by your posts.

Gerard Harbison said...

` GH, it would take you all of 30 seconds using the Google to find out that the 7,000 square mile dead zone caused by fertilizer runoff is mainly in shallow waters of the Gulf. The BP spill area is not in this zone.

Well, gee, I suggest you google 'reuters dead zone bp oil spill'. In the first link from reuters, you will find that, according to the scientists who actually study the dead zones in the Gulf, the spill zone and the dead zone in fact do overlap. And in the second reuters link, you'll find that oxygen levels around the spill itself weren't actually that low.

All you seem to have is unsupported assertions, which, coming from an anonymous poster on the net, just aren't all that convincing, particularly when they contradict the work of real scientists with real names. Everything you've posted about this seems to be wrong. The spill zone and the annual dead zone overlap, the spill zone isn't particularly dead compared with the annual dead zone, and the scientists who've spent their careers studying it say they can't say if there's a positive or a negative connection between the spill and this year's dead zone. But hey, what do they know?

You actually don't seem to have posted a single claim about this that isn't wrong. How long are you going to continue to waste both of our time with this?

Anonymous said...

GH, you are so full of it. I did not post unsupported assertions and gave you the name of a scientist who is studying this issue. Your earlier posts tried to minimize the issue of damage caused by the BP oil spill and tried to convince others that "bugs ate it" as if this completely solved the damage caused by the spill. In your last post you point out that the fertilizer caused dead zone overlaps the spill zone. An earlier post of yours stated: The dead zone area this year is over 7000 square miles, far larger than the BP dead zone you're claiming, and it completely contains it. Well in my dictionary, overlap is not the same as completely contains. For someone who holds academic credentials, that's pretty sloppy, posting something that is false. Please stick to Chemistry. I'll assume you do know something about that subject.

Shoe Salesman said...

The greatest irony in this post is Sweeper's insistence that we all "listen to the scientists" when Sweeper and the other anti-science folks that populate this blog also insist on ignoring the "science" on climate change. Here we have one scientist sweeper quotes out of context. On Climate Change we have thousands of scientists - 99% of scientists in the field - in agreement yet we should ignore their findings.

Second irony is that the oil comes from canada and goes to south america. With this pipeline, nebraska isn't only a fly-over state, its an oil pass through state.

And anyone who thinks spilling oil, any amount of oil, into the aquifer will not cause damage is simply foolish.

Jane is right. Instead of settling for 150 jobs to maintain a pipeline for someone else's oil, Nebraska could create thousands - hudreds of thousands of jobs in clean energy development. But hey, thet's a liberal idea so it's dumb!

Street Sweeper said...

Shoey,

Yup, and you have all that correspondence that shows there was no fudging those global warming numbers either right?

Interesting that this whole pipeline fight went from, "the pipeline isn't safe" to "tar sand oil causes global warming!".

You guys are transparent.

SS

Anonymous said...

Yeah, the 99% of global warming scientists are all fudging data in a grand conspiracy to convince us that mankind is causing global warming. It's an irrefutable physical law of thermodynamics that if you add carbon dioxide to a closed system, more heat will be retained. Occam's Razor please.

Street Sweeper said...

I know for a fact that 99% of scientists believe what you assert is false.

There! Magic assertions!

What you're even coming up with is such BS it's barely worth replying to. There is very little that you can get 99% of scientists -- let alone anyone else -- to "agree on".

Well, except for Earth-flatness. Or the speed of sound. Or computer size. Or global-cooling. Or patents.

Please take your enviro-religion somewhere else.

Shoe Salesman said...

SS - Id rather be transparent than duplicitous as you are. My point was the irony of you using science to make the case for anything since you are part of the right wing conspiracy that has spent recent years undermining science.

I do, in fact, have the correspondence. Unlike you, I've read the so called "Climate gate" emails. out of thousands there were fewer than a handful with anything approaching questionable language. and it is true that the scientific community is near unanimous on the existence of and causes of and solutions for climate change.

It's not religion its science. you are on the side that uses religion as a weapon and as a pretense to discount research and scientific discovery.

My point is more people could get real jobs if NE invested in clean energy. But hey, a pipeline is a much better idea. Let's hope they use skilled labor to build it so we have less risk of rupture and ecological disaster. Oh, wait, you probably hate working people too!

Street Sweeper said...

Shoey,

Nice to see that you're already changing your tune on the scientific community. A couple of more posts and we'll have you working for Haliburton.

The difference is that your side's religion IS environmentalism, with cherry-picked stats to "prove" your case.

Preach to your own choir. They eat up your stuff.