SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Nebraska regulators approved an alternative route Monday for the proposed Keystone XL pipeline. It was the last major regulatory hurdle facing project operator TransCanada Corp., though opponents say another round of federal approval may now be needed.
The Nebraska Public Service Commission's ruling was on the Nebraska route TransCanada has proposed to complete the $8 billion, 1,179-mile (1,897-kilometer) pipeline to deliver oil from Alberta, Canada, to Texas Gulf Coast refineries. The proposed Keystone XL route would cross parts of Montana, South Dakota and most of Nebraska to Steele City, Nebraska.
The long-delayed project was rejected by President Barack Obama in 2015, citing concerns about carbon pollution. President Donald Trump revived it in March, approving a permit.
[...] The five-member Nebraska Public Service Commission was forbidden by law from factoring pipeline safety or the risk of spills into its decision because pipeline safety is a federal responsibility. So, it couldn't take into account a spill of 210,000 gallons (790,000 liters) of oil on the existing Keystone pipeline in South Dakota announced on Thursday.
Also at Alternative Keystone XL route gets approved in Nebraska
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 21 2017, @12:16AM (4 children)
Why not build a refinery in Canada?
(Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 21 2017, @12:27AM
We want jobs in the USA, not in Canada. If the snow-Mexicans want to Make Canada Great Again, they should elect Ted Cruz. He was even born in Canada. Sorry, we aren't sharing Trump, but I guess he might be available if you can wait another 7 years.
Pipelines would still be required anyway, for shipping the products to both the Pacific and the Atlantic. Given how many pipes the USA already has, going via the USA is relatively easy.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 21 2017, @04:21AM
The pollution laws are too strict. They're more flexible here in the USA.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by drussell on Tuesday November 21 2017, @09:54AM (1 child)
Personally, I would love to see more refining capacity here in Alberta. That way we could make a greater share of the total value of the finished, refined products instead of shipping just the cheap crude oil and letting people elsewhere make all the money by adding value in the refining process...
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Goghit on Tuesday November 21 2017, @06:42PM
Some of us on the coast would like to see more refining capacity in Alberta as well - there'd be less opposition to piping refined products to tankers out here than that unrefined dil-bit shit.
Unfortunately it's expensive to build and run refineries for bitumen and the Koch Bros want to get the chunk of Alberta tar sands they own to their refineries in the Gulf, so that's never going to happen. Personally, I'd like to see refineries in Alberta and the tar sand extraction operations run on nuclear heated steam. Bonus points if the reactor is sited over a geological fault somewhere close to Calgary so they can gain a better appreciation of how we feel about tankers out here.