(quoted from post at 12:56:22 01/30/14) The fight about the pipeline is not about if there will be a pipeline, it is about where the pipeline will connect to. Shipping oil out of the Dakotas by rail is a only a short term solution until a pipeline is eventually build.
It's not just the enviornmentalists that are against the Keystone pipeline. In the upper Midwest many businesses, state governments and local governments are against it too. The reason is we don't get receive much benfit from the pipeline and economically it will make us less competitive in the future. Once oil reaches a coastline it can be shipped to anywhere in the world. New businesses and new jobs will follow that oil, why should we export those jobs out of the region or export them out of the country?
There is a high demand and a very large market for both energy and for refined petroleum products right here in the Midwest and in the nearby Great Lakes states. Better supplies and lower oil costs would be an economic boon to this area and to the Great Lakes states.
Shorter pipelines could deliver that oil and natural gas into the existing pipeline grids at: Souix Falls; Omaha; Minneapolis; Des Moines; Milwaukee or Chicago. We could feed the pipeline grid from both the northern and southern ends, reducing the load on the grid.
Rather than pumping that oil 1200 miles to refineries on the Gulf Coast and then shipping (whatever does not get exported) back another 1200 miles to the the Midwest, why not refine it right here in the Midwest and save those pipeline costs and pumping costs?
Aging refineries on the Gulf Coast will need to be upgraded or replaced anyway. Why not build the new refineries in the Midwest? New refineries could be built in: the Dakotas; Nebraska; Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin and Illinois. Some enviornmentalists will always howl about any new refineries, but we already have refineries on the Great Lakes that are some of the cleanest in the world. We have the technology to do things right if we want to. New refineries would create high paying jobs and not just for a few chemists and petroleum engineers. Refineries need: mechanical engineers, electrical engineers, controls engineers, pipe fitters, electricians, mill wrights, machinists, welders, janitors, office managers, secretaries, human resources people, supplier companies, transportation companies, etc.
Lower energy costs and reliable supplies would benefit businesses and homeowners thoughout the region. Farmers could benefit from lower diesel fuel costs, and lower propane costs (maybe lower NH3 costs also, is NH3 made from natural gas?). Local Farmer's Coops are curently building next to natural gas pipelines to reduce their corn drying costs.
If there is sufficient natural gas supply it would be an strong incentive to expand the natural gas pipleline grid further into the East Coast states and further into rural areas. Just like the REA brought electricity to rural America during the 1930's and 1940's, who's to say there could not be a similar program (Rural Natural Gas Association?) to bring natural gas to farms across the Midwest or across the USA? Yes, many people will howl that governments should not be involved in anymore big programs, leave it to big businesses to handle this. Some even advocate that some new public roads should be privatized (former MN governor Tim Palenty for one example).
Rural natuaral gas won't happen in my life time. Rural telephone systems and rural electric systems took over a generation to install. Rural water systems and rural cable/fiber optic systems are mostly only small local efforts, similar to the first municalpal electric cooperatives. Think what farming would be like without electricity or if you had to generate your own electricity. Natural gas could benefit a farm almost as much as electricity does.
The fight about the pipeline is not if there will be a pipeline, it is about where to pipeline will connect to. I do believe that rural small towns and farms would benefit if they could heat homes, businesses, work shops, livestock buildings and crop dryers with natural gas. That will be a non-starter if we export our supply our of the region or out of the country.
Creating new jobs is a big problem in the USA. No one has many effective solutions. I believe keeping that oil in the Midwest will create more new jobs than exporting the oil will. It is an opportunity to help the both the region and the coutry, but no one is talking about it. This is a long term change to the country's infrastructure that could affect the jobs availble to our children and our grandchildren.
I don't intend this to be a rant, and I don't want to put down other people's opinions. I only want to present this idea for maybe further discussions.
Thank you.
ss55
