Jump to content

Talk:Keystone Pipeline/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Who is funding this project?

I haven't found anything about where the money to build this thing is coming from. Does anyone know? 24.214.238.86 (talk) 15:56, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

TransCanada. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 16:49, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Who is Bill Mann?

The entire first paragraph in the "Support" section seems to be irrelevant/silly. Just because somebody wrote an article mentioning the pipeline doesn't mean that the article should be referenced here. Frankly, it seems to detract from the support argument. Mcdruid (talk) 06:29, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

List of sources recently added to this page

The edit war accusing the latest set of edits to this talk page to be spam or vandalism is lame. This was already hashed out at WP:ANI in this discussion and I suggest that the discussion there be re-opened if further accusations of vandalism or spam are used. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 17:04, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I promised not to raise this issue again; however, as it was already raised by User:Orange Suede Sofa with a reference to the specific AN/I discussion, I think that I have a right to comment this. Notwithstanding comments by two admins, the clarification or amendments of talk page guidelines was not done, so I will repeat my request to amend the relevant policies for saying that adding links to the talk page without clarification how they are relevant to the topic or how they could be used for improvement of the article is a legitimate action. I think that clarity about how to use talk pages vis-a-vis with addition of external links, will help to avoid similar conflicts in the future.
By my understanding reactions of admins based on assumption that if somebody added news sources about the article's topic (well not always even about the subject, but just mentioning it), it is always helpful and "you might find useful to add to the page". I would like to say that usually that is true and I am thankful to all editors bringing up new bits of information what will help to improve the article; however, I still have some doubts about this case. Like in case of this article (Keystone Pipeline), in several cases the relevant information was added to the article already before IP user added his/her links to the talk page. Maybe not the same exact source as provided by IP user, but so far if the text contains the fact supported by reliable sources you don't need to add all available sources. Particularly interesting case was with the Energias de Portugal article where the fact that China Three Gorges Corporation will buy a stake in the company was added to the article 2 days before IP user added link to the talk page. He/she was keen to have the specific link to The Wall Street Journal notwithstanding the fact the content of WSJ is limited by subscription and free source was already added to article. I hate to say this but it may be interpreted as arrogance and disrespect to fellow editors.
There are also cases when a number of sources added to the talk page, which are about relevant topics, but belongs to some other articles as they are not about the topic of article. I think that [1] and [2] are good example of this as we we have other articles dealing primary with these issues.
I think that these added links would be more helpful if they are more critically valued by the adding editor. I also think that it would be more suitable and user-friendly if new sources will be added to the existing section rather than creating every time a new section, particularly if the sections titles does not hint what is the main relevance of them, but just saying 'source' or 'resource'. I hope that IP user will agree with merging all these sources into one section rather than having five short sections as we have now. By my opinion the current stage of the talk page disrupts the reading of it, so I kindly ask the IP user to merge these sections himself/herself.
I would also suggest to avoid making threats and to discuss, including all involved parties. Thank you. Beagel (talk) 18:53, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Support for the Pipleline

This article is one sided and not a single proponent is quoted on the main page. Should we have not have sources who say that their will be no environmental impact and the jobs created. Julie Louis Dryfeyss might as well dictated this page.Basil rock (talk) 18:52, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

The Controversies section should reflect both—opponents and proponents—arguments in balanced way. If you think that any important argument presented during the debate is missing, you are welcome to add this. Beagel (talk) 19:03, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Agree, if you think it's one-sided, then added text (with references) for the other side. I primarily care about the facts and cutting down on the spam. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 20:15, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the this is too one sided. Too much bias against it. Even those against it should not be using Wikipedia to push a desired outcome but to give accurate unbiased information, so readers can form their own bias. Wikipedia as a whole looses credibility when not giving readers enough information to do that. I am going to flag this article until it has enough information, both positive and negative, in for each reader to develop a well informed opinion. As it stands the reader sees a one sided article that leaves the reader uninformed of the other side of the coin, so to speak.Kentcurtis (talk) 15:59, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Recent developments

While reading this article, I noticed that the latest developments with regards to President Obama's decision on the permit application for Keystone XL and the planned House committee hearing haven't been added. Based on some news pieces from the last few days, I've put together a couple of paragraphs that I think could be added to bring the article up to date. While I've made an addition to "Keystone XL", I'd also like to add some information to "Political issues" but want to run this by other editors first. One of the sources I've used is a National Review article written by an expert from The Heritage Foundation and I work at Heritage, so I want to flag this in case it's an issue and offer these changes here first (see below). If you agree these help, please feel free to use them. I'd also welcome any constructive suggestions for how to offer resources in future. Thanks, Kalkaska sand (talk) 18:14, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

In January 2012, President Obama rejected the application for the Keystone XL Pipeline, stating that the deadline for the decision set by congressional Republicans had "prevented a full assessment of the pipeline's impact". This decision was criticized by Republicans and industry groups, who argued that it was wholly political and demonstrated that Obama was not interested in the pipeline's potential to create employment.[1][2] Critics stated that the permit application had been denied in order to cater to special interest groups, and had been proceeding with bipartisan support prior to interest from environmental activists.[3][4]

Removal of sentence regarding consumption totals

With this edit I removed the following sentence from the article:

Upon completion, the Keystone Pipeline System would provide 5 percent of the current U.S. petroleum consumption needs and represent 9 percent of U.S. petroleum imports.

The sentence was cited to a newspaper story, which would be fine, except the line in question comes straight from a press release (or the like) from the National Association of Manufacturers, an organization that very much has a dog in this fight. The Augusta Gazette just dumped this statement into their story without vetting it, apparently. As such we are basically using a (quite biased) primary source rather than a secondary source, as the editor who originally added it probably presumed.

If there are neutral third-party sources that back up these numbers then by all means re-add them, but given the contentiousness of these issues we shouldn't rely on partisans on either side for data about how much petroleum the pipeline would provide. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:35, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

News article consolidation discusion

Sbmeirow (talk · contribs) consolidated multiple "sources" added by the same editor editing under multiple IP addresses. I see no reason why that consolidation should be reversed.—Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:30, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

His/her edit meets 3 of the subpoints under which other's comments should be edited.—Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
There has been excessive quoting from articles in this talk section, almost to the point of becoming spam, thus is why I cleaned it up and merged all the article links into one section. The alternatives would have been deleting it. I don't have anything against helpful links to articles, but excessive quoting from those articles is another thing. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 01:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Various contributors were deleted in this consolidation. Here are some editors of this new grouping: Special:Contributions/99.190.85.111, Special:Contributions/99.19.45.160, Special:Contributions/99.190.80.41, Special:Contributions/99.190.83.89. If I get more time I look for more. 99.181.152.94 (talk) 06:48, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Is there any any proof that these are different editors, not just the single editor using dynamic IP or using different computers? All these IP addresses are from the same area and by edits pattern this is clear WP:DUCK case. Using different accounts or IP addresses to create impression that these are different editors is actually a violation of WP:SOCK. Beagel (talk) 07:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  1. I agree with Beagel.
  2. I might have made some minor mistakes during the merge because there was so much stuff to merge and cleanup, but I sure wasn't picking on specific IP addresses....its not like I favored one set of hot numbers over another set of ugly numbers.
  3. This is suppose to be the discussion page, NOT the "post a link and long quotes to support your view that you can't get in the article" page.
  4. Since most of the IP posts had large quotes of text from the links, and most people don't do this type of thing, then my guesses are: either one person was doing posting from multiple computers, or a group of people were ganging up to do it. Either way it is a big red flag.
  5. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 08:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Potentially misleading passage re US exports of petroleum products

A paragraph reported a news story that the US was recently a significant exporter of oil-based fuels (i.e., selected petroleum distillates) and presented this as an argument against the "energy security" case for the pipeline (in fact, the text passage said the data lead "many" to question this case, but did not identify who the "many" were, and the cited source made no such connection). I am 100% agnostic about the merits of the pipeline per se. This particular passage, however, gives the impression of very likely having been based on a misunderstanding. Reading the source in detail confirms that the US continues to be in massive deficit for crude oil -- in amounts that substantially exceed the quantities of certain refined products exported. I've deleted the passage in question. Nandt1 (talk) 17:42, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

...at this point consists exclusively of official pro-pipeline resources (plus one "social media study"). I'm restoring a link that was summarily removed with the edit summary "Remove Activist website. BRD" since as currently constituted the section is flagrantly one-sided. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 16:04, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Query

Does anybody know where the steel for the pipe will come from? Does anybody know where the pipe will be manufactured? There are all sorts of claims about how many jobs will be created. But will they be American jobs? Korean jobs? Chinese jobs? Vasa2 (talk) 17:54, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I saw that information in an article I read. I think it was in the paper by the Cornell institute. it had a discussion of related issues.Smm201`0 (talk) 18:39, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Reliable Source Deletion

In response to "Please do not use WP for environmental activism. Politicaly movtivated agenda driven editing on WP is bad enough the way it is. Arzel (talk) 16:55, 11 March 2012 (UTC)"

Cornell University is a prestigious institution and the study is relevant to the issues raised.Smm201`0 (talk) 17:12, 11 March 2012 (UTC) As per explanation for reverting, the Cornell Study is a legitimate, verifiable, reliable source. Better to counter with research supporting alternative perspectives and let reader decide what to believe.Smm201`0 (talk) 17:19, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Did anyone read that Cornell Labor Institute paper? It is unintentionally hilarious! It asserts, among other things, that the Keystone pipeline will not create as many jobs as advertised because...of the massive job destroying effects of global warming caused by the pipeline. It is a classic! It is so out there. I was worried that a jobs assessment research project would be better done by a Business School or Economics Department that specializes in such things, but I realize now that a Labor Institute that trains labor negotiators and sociologists is really the place where serious non-biased press releases should come from. Capitalismojo (talk) 04:36, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Are we reading the same report? The document I'm looking at doesn't start talking about productivity loss due to environmental damage until page 28 (of 40 total); the section dealing with carbon emissions constitutes pp. 30-32 (and p. 31 is 50% photo). More troubling is the possible use of substandard materials, leading to more spills which cost money to clean up (to the extent they can be cleaned up). Most of the report is in fact concerned with (among other things) misreported budget spend, allegations as to the short-lived nature of the construction jobs to be created, and pointing out that the steel to be used in the pipeline will be manfactured in, and imported from, India and South Korea. How this constitutes hilarity, intentional or otherwise, is beyond me. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 05:59, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes we are reading the same report. It is a joke. Let's start at the executive summary (at the beginning). It asserts, with no evidence, that all construction of the pipeline within Canada will use Canadian contractors and material. That is demonstrably untrue. The biggest pipeline contractors in the world are US companies they can and do construct pipelines for Transcanada. Transcanada had already inked contracts with several. ILR reduces the budget and jobs number by 23% with that mistake alone. They talk about major deaths in pipeline explosions in 2010 and attribute over a billion in likely costs ( and hence opportunity cost related job losses). That is amazing because those deaths and explosions are related to natural gas pipelines not oil pipelines. They don't mention that, why? I could go on endlessly, almost every assertion is POV and misleading. This was a shoddy report. I am not deleting it because I think it is noteworthy. I emphatically don't view it as reliable in any meaningful sense. Capitalismojo (talk) 04:19, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Since the report is cited five different times in the article, that level of shoddiness (if what you've said here is true) deserves refutation. If one of the more economically-based critiques of the pipeline is that divorced from the reality of the issue, that needs to be pointed out, with refs. You seem to have those, so go ahead and put them in. I'm happy to help out with that as well, if you point me to them. Thanks. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 05:03, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of Sand Hills and aquifer info

Can anyone tell me why this section was deleted? It was sourced.

The section read: "...because of its routing over hundreds of miles of Sand Hills which lies atop the Ogallala Aquifer in Nebraska. In a report (2011-11-10) on the Keystone Pipeline Project Presidential Permit Review Process, the U. S. State Department rejected TransCanada Keystone XL Pipeline (Hardisty-Baker-Steele City) proposal. "[G]iven the concentration of concerns regarding the environmental sensitivities of the current proposed route through the Sand Hills area of Nebraska, the Department has determined it needs to undertake an in-depth assessment of potential alternative routes in Nebraska [...] The comments were consistent with the information in the final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) about the unique combination of characteristics in the Sand Hills (which includes a high concentration of wetlands of special concern, a sensitive ecosystem, and extensive areas of very shallow groundwater) and provided additional context and information about those characteristics. The concern about the proposed route’s impact on the Sand Hills of Nebraska [. . .] increased significantly over time, and has resulted in the Nebraska legislature convening a special session to consider the issue.""Smm201`0 (talk) 14:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

First of all, the section was not deleted. This particular section deals with technical description of the pipeline. All information concerning the Sand Hills issue is already included in the article's Controversy section (Environmental issues subsection), so your addition was just a duplication of the existing information. Therefore they were removed from this particular subsection, but the information is still exists in the environmental issues subsection. Also, nobody deleted the references you added—these references were just moved to the relevant subsection. Beagel (talk) 18:42, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Latest changes

After latest changes the information of existing Keystone pipeline and planned/under construction Keystone XL are mixed (particularly concerning technical description). Some cleanup and clarification is needed. Beagel (talk) 07:41, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I originally just wanted to add the new (July 2012) lawsuit info, but found the article to be very dis-jointed and difficult to follow. I've now re-structured the "technical" information, removing a dead link and adding a new ref. However, much of the article is based in another dead link (#1) for which I have not found a replacement. Additional refs & suggestions welcome. Meclee (talk) 17:51, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

U.S. State Dept clears pipeline

http://neworleanscitybusiness.com/blog/2013/03/01/state-dept-oks-keystone-xl-pipeline/ HammerFilmFan (talk) 15:11, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Pipeline Capacity

For some reason, I couldn't finish typing my explanation to the infobox edit, so I came to discuss this here.

The pipeline infobox is generally FUBAR because people don't understand the units. "MBbl" refers to a thousand barrels, and "MMbbl" refers to a million barrels. Keystone is 590,000 barrels per day, hence 590 MBbl, or 0.59 MMbbl. The infobox formerly stated that the capacity was 0.59 MBbl; I have fixed this.

The use of "MBbl" as the unit for reporting discharge is causing problems on other articles as well. The article for the Seaway Pipeline also incorrectly reports discharge due to a misunderstanding of units. Someone who knows how to change the infobox template should make the change to simply using "Bbl" as the unit, since most people are going to be unfamiliar with the "M" vs "MM" convention. 173.166.110.9 (talk) 17:11, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm Curious

I wasn't aware that there already is the original Keystone pipeline bringing that crud oil 2500 miles into the US. What about all the anti-environment conservatives who claim there is more oil already here in the US than all of Saudi Arabia, and all we need to do is "drill baby drill"? If there is all that oil under our feet, why do we need a 36" pipe bringing that high sulfur, dirty crap into the US? By building this pipeline we'll just be postponing the inevitable need to pull our heads out of our behinds and face the facts that we can't continue to live our excessive lifesyles while overpopulating our planet. Flight Risk (talk) 21:06, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

While true, none of that is relevant to the article except insofar as published sources report those things. See WP:NOTFORUM and WP:TRUTH. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 21:27, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I think it WOULD be useful to sector the so-called environmental concerns; the existing pipeline either does or does not have impacts, the proposed pipeline spans several regions and each has individual challenges, yet all are confusingly lumped together. Not even segregated into environmental concerns in Canada vs US. The protests over CO2 are really protests of developing the Tar Sands at all, and are not related to where the oil is refined, though politicians seem to confuse that. Global Warming protests should be sectored into a section all by themselves. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 19:56, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

The same oil sands that are in Alberta are in the Dakota's and Montana, this is the vast untapped resource in America that is greater than the entire middle east combined. 69.59.100.89 (talk) 03:46, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Keystone Pipeline through Kansas

I'm confused why people were protesting this pipeline in Topeka, Kansas on September 26, 2011, because I thought there was ONLY one pipeline segment that ran through Kansas. The pipeline was buried in Kansas LAST YEAR (2010) and completed to Cushing, Oklahoma in February 2011. My confusion is why are they whining in Kansas when the pipeline is already completed through the state? They aren't digging another pipeline in Kansas, right? • Sbmeirow • Talk • 04:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

See Keystone Pipeline System document. It doesn't state anything about building a 2nd pipeline through Kansas. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 07:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
The article had a bunch of mistakes because it was written back in 2008. I correct some mistakes and split the routing into phases to match the TransCanada PDF document. I added a Cushing infobox and renamed the pipelines to match the TransCanada PDF document. The article needs MORE fixing to match the phases and cleanup of old or out-of-date information. Please help! • Sbmeirow • Talk • 05:52, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Mr. Sbmeirow, I have some aerial photos of the construction phase of this pipeline, near and north of Augusta, KS. Some display the open trench with white limestone just below the prairie surface. Homebuilding (talk) 15:34, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

The Kansas leg of the pipeline is finished. Phase 3 (TX and OK) is almost finished 80%+ done. Phase 4 almost gets to Kansas as the depot is just north of the border in Nebraska. The AP stories about the pipeline are so pathetic as they act as if construction hasn't even started when in reality the project is nearing completion. The entire pipe has been manufactured and is just needing to be laid into place now. 69.59.100.89 (talk) 03:51, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

>> North Gateway pipeline: Another notch in Canada's poor environmental record>> Harper Sees Keystone Approval, With or Without Obama (Lihaas (talk) 15:45, 18 January 2014 (UTC)).

State department's new report on the pipeline

Phil Bump, writing for The Wire today summarized the most recent report sent out form the State Department regarding the Keystone XL Pipeline. Bump's article, titled "The Nine Things you need to know about the Keystone XL Pipeline Report," attempts to break down the "dry, complex document analyzing the environment effects of a new oil pipeline." The article can be found at the following URL: http://www.thewire.com/politics/2014/01/nine-things-you-need-know-about-keystone-xl-pipeline-report/357615/. Any thoughts on if this article is notable enough to add to the page? If so, where do you think it belongs in the article? I was thinking it might possibly fit in the "Environmental Issues" section of the article. Anyways, let me know what you thinK! Comatmebro ~Come at me~ 22:34, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Why would this be notable? Plazak (talk) 03:17, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Looks like many pols' opposition to the pipeline was motivated by $$$

Democrats who oppose Keystone XL pipeline own shares in competing companies[5] JayHubie (talk) 21:12, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

1) You are citing Fox News. 2) All Democrats have shares in competing companies? What percentage are we talking about? Third party research required. 3) Seems to be an attempt to shift the focus from environmental issues to corruption (aka lobbying) issues on your part, based on the Democratic party platform in regards to the environment.68.100.138.56 (talk) 07:26, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Misc

There needs to be an entire subsection on the climate impacts of this KXL project because that is the primary criteria that the State Departments will base it national interest determination upon. Renowned climate scientist James Hansen stated in 2013 that "tar sands [are] one of the dirtiest, most carbon-intensive fuels on the planet" and moving to expand the use of tar sands would be a step in exactly the wrong direction. See also NRDC Issue Brief: Climate Impacts of the Keystone XL Tar Sands Pipeline. Oct 2013. http://www.nrdc.org/energy/keystone-pipeline/files/tar-sands-climate-impacts-IB.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.96.46.144 (talk) 23:13, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect units, also, what does this sentence mean?

I fixed the units in one of the info box that had a redundant thousand in it, claiming that the capacity of one phase was 700,000 Mbbl/day. The M in Mbbl already means "thousand," so 700 Mbbl = 700,000 barrels (the correct capacity) and 700,000 Mbbl = 700 million barrels (not the correct capacity).

I fixed "effect" versus "affect" in this sentence but I'm still not sure what it means regarding the relationship between infrastructure and production: "As this estimated change in total capacity doesn't affect the basic production equation (one gallon in equals one gallon out), there is no reason to believe that Keystone XL will result in increased production." It seems to me that in an infrastructure-constrained production environment like Alberta, insufficient transport infrastructure is indeed a limiting factor in total production, and I don't understand how "one gallon in equals one gallon out" is relevant. Could someone please clarify this sentence and preferably add a citation? Otherwise I'll likely remove it later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.166.110.9 (talk) 16:09, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the statement you quote is ambiguous. As it stands it is wrong, because there is a reason to think that Keystone XL construction would increase production. The statement would need to be refined and cited; as it stands I agree with removing it. Enewe101 (talk) 17:26, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Potential ref

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/senate-blocks-measure-to-build-keystone-xl-pipeline-discussions-will-continue/2015/01/26/a6ba4968-a5b1-11e4-a2b2-776095f393b2_story.html?tid=HP_politics?tid=HP_politics Bananasoldier (talk) 14:34, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Idea/argument that Keystone XL could bring about "runaway" global warming

This is a subject I've heard mentioned in several places, but I've not yet found a credible enough source to justify inclusion in the Environmental Issues section of the article. I notice that in the past a comment on this subject by Samuel Avery was deleted--and probably rightly so--because the source wasn't completely reliable. Frankly, due to the controversial nature of this subject, I'm surprised no one has tried to add a similar comment back in. Maybe this claim has been thoroughly debunked? If so, then perhaps the argument/refutation deserves a subheading under the Keystone Controversies section. --BRBixxx (talk) 17:01, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Personal Opinion, and Not Relevant

There is a passage

Research hydrogeologist James Goeke, professor emeritus at the University of Nebraska, who has spent more than 40 years studying the Ogallala Aquifer, phoned TransCanada officials and quizzed them on the project, and satisfied himself that danger to the aquifer was small, because he believes that a spill would be unlikely to penetrate down into the aquifer, and if it did, he believes that the contamination would be localized. He noted: "A lot of people in the debate about the pipeline talk about how leakage would foul the water and ruin the entire water supply in the state of Nebraska and that's just a false,"[61] Goeke said "... a leak from the XL pipeline would pose a minimal risk to the aquifer as a whole.

which seems to inject personal opinion and has no obvious relevance. The cited references do provide some relevant information, but I think what has been provided here should be removed. Enewe101 (talk) 21:49, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

The scientific conclusion of a hydrogeologist with good academic credentials, who has spent a career studying the Ogallala aquifer "has no obvious relevance"? You have to be kidding! Quite the contrary. He appears to be an expert in the field, and squarely addresses the subject at hand: certainly a WP:RS. Plazak (talk) 11:50, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
I just had to restore this passage in the article after someone deleted it. For more on Goeke's conclusions, see his op-ed from the New York Times: (James Goeke, “The pipeline poses minimal risk to the Ogallala aquifer”, New York Times, 4 Oct. 2011). The objection is that Goeke's scientific conclusion was not published in a peer-reviewed journal. But not all reliable sources have to be peer-reviewed. The most relevant guideline I have found is that, according to WP:SPS: “Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.” So is Goeke an established expert with peer-reviewed work in the field of groundwater? Anyone who doubts it can visit his faculty web page: James Goeke, Professor Emeritus, which shows that, besides government publications, he has authored articles for Ground Water, and the Journal of the American Water Resources Association (I don't think you can find any peer-reviewed publications more reliable and relevant than those two). A quick check of Worldcat shows that he is also the author of the very relevant book: Sandhills Geology, published by the School of Natural Resources of the University of Nebraska, Lincoln. So Goeke is an excellent source, completely in conformance with Wikipedia guidelines.
The passage would be improved if cited a better source than an op ed in the New York Times. Its not written as a first person quote by James Goeke but rather is a quote from an unnamed individual giving an opinion of the opinion. User:Plazek writing below should be aware as an engineer that other engineers and scientists like to be able to run the numbers. As it stands the article comes across like the sort of thing we saw when the tobacco industry was disputing the fact that cigarette smoking was dangerous to our health and paid a few disreputable scientists to support their claims. We see the same thing with a few "experts" disputing the climate change warnings of the IPCC which is the consensus of a solid majority of scientists in disciplines across the board.
The Passage would be improved if it gave as a counter point specific facts as to how petrochemicals pollute ground water from the testimony at the trial of WR Grace in Woburn MA a few decades ago and then explained why these potential objections to the use of the phrase "minimal risk" would not be applicable here. instead of conclusions without facts. It should at a minimum avoid terms like minimal risk to say specifically what the risk is, how its measured weighed and judged, and avoid weasel phrases such as "it appears". 142.0.102.94 (talk) 13:31, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
You are right that Goerke’s comments could have been put in more precise terms, but the citation is what it is: a treatment for the general public by an expert in the field of groundwater in general, and the Ogallala aquifer in particular: a WP:RS despite its limitations. Perhaps the passage would be improved if Goeke, or anyone, could quantify the risk, and specify that there is X.XX percent per year risk of pollution reaching the aquifer and depriving YY number of people of potable water, but such precision would be suspect, given the state of knowledge.
Your comment about not recognizing that groundwater contamination is a genuine problem, such as at the Woburn site, is a straw man argument. Goeke does not, as you suggest, write that groundwater contamination does not happen, or is not important. On the contrary, he acknowledges the real risk, but also details factors that would tend to limit the contamination reaching the aquifer, and once in the aquifer, would limit the horizontal spread of contamination. He doesn’t say it can’t happen, just that it wouldn’t be the catastrophe that some fear. Woburn is a bad analogy, because, as you should know, the main problem there is chlorinated hydrocarbons, which have very different chemical and physical properties than natural hydrocarbons. Goeke, being the expert that he is, instead discusses the much more analogous Bemidji contamination site.
As for your likening Goeke to climate-change deniers, or scientists hired by tobacco companies, if you have any factual basis for that, you should document it in the article. For that to be true, Goeke’s conclusions should be opposed by a general consensus of other groundwater scientists, which, if true, you should be able to easily document. On the other hand, if your comparison of Goeke to climate denialists has no basis, you should not be using this talk page for baseless innuendo, or ad hominem attacks on Goeke.
The paragraph just above the one concerning Goeke notes that the pipeline would cross the Ogallala aquifer, which serves as a water source for 2 million people. The clear implication is that the pipeline would risk depriving the 2 million people, or some significant portion thereof, of drinking water. (otherwise, why quantify the two million people?) A lot of people who are sincere, but without any apparent groundwater credentials, appear to believe this; but is this true? When I went Googling for knowledgeable information on the subject, I came across Goeke’s conclusions. Goerke is certainly an expert scientific source, but there is of course room in the article for more scientific sources. Rather than complain about a scientific conclusion which displeases you, perhaps you should be looking for other scientific sources on this topic. If you have any other expert sources to cite on this point, by all means add them to the article.Plazak (talk) 04:50, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
It appears strange to me that a few editors object to including such a reliable source, especially in an article awash with uninformed opinions. The preceding paragraph in the Wikipedia article notes, correctly, that some people fear that the pipeline would threaten the Ogallala aquifer. It is right that Wikipedia should accurately note the real concerns of non-experts, but it should also include the scientific conclusions of acknowledged experts. Plazak (talk) 14:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I added another scientific source. I'm not an engineer myself, and my additions might be detail overkill, but it's a place to start. Re the comparison of Goeke to scientists hired by tobacco companies, there is certainly no reason to doubt Dr. Goeke's integrity on the surface. However, a quick Google search does reveal that Goeke's 2011 quote has been used by many pro-Pipeline orgs and sites that do not attempt to disguise contempt for Pipeline opponents. Again, still no reason to doubt Dr. Goeke himself.BRBixxx (talk) 02:14, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Good addition to the article. Although Stansbury's qualifications are more in surface water than ground water, he qualifies as an RS. I would note that almost all his article is on surface spills, which he correctly identifies as the major spill problem. Does he contradict Goeke? He does not say so, and the contradiction, if any, is not apparent on close reading. Even with combining a maximum leak with the 100-year storm, along with some implicit assumptions that will have to be addressed by some other expert, Stansbury gets a worst-case plume that, if left unchecked, eventually spreads to cover a total of 1.42 square miles, and is 40 feet thick. A big problem, to be sure, but hardly the end of the Ogallala aquifer. But you did a good job in finding another source. My only quibble is that the statement that Stansbury contradicts Goeke appears to be your own interpretation, as I don't see it in the source. Regards, Plazak (talk) 04:03, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. I actually meant to change the wording about "contradiction" but got distracted before logging off. I agree that there does not appear to be any direct contradiction, so I'll adjust the wording accordingly. Also, if you see any ways to improve the wording or structure of this section, please have at it. I'm interested in the subject matter, but just as interested in how wiki articles like this one evolve. Thanks again, BRBixxx (talk) 14:35, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

No such thing as "Canadian Oil".

In Canada natural resources belong to the provinces so it is Alberta bitumen when it is in the ground. When a lease holder extracts it and upgrades it into something that resembles crude oil it then belongs to the lease holder and not the province of Alberta. The lease holding companies are from all over the world and only a few of them are Canadian owned.68.149.229.230 (talk) 23:29, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Do you object to the phrase "Canadian people" because they are also not owned by the government? Just wondering. And unless Ottawa nationalizes the beer industry, I'll have to think up another term for "Canadian beer." Any suggestions? Regards Plazak (talk) 02:37, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

The length of Phase 1

On Oct 19, 2015 this is what is said about Phase 1:

The Keystone Pipeline (Phase I), delivering oil from Hardisty, Alberta 480-kilometers (300 mi) to the junction at Steele City, Nebraska and on to Wood River Refinery in Roxana, Illinois and Patoka Oil Terminal Hub (tank farm) north of Patoka, Illinois, completed in June 2010.[2]

The length of 480 km is clearly wrong, just based on the map it seems that something in the range of a couple thousand kilometers separate Hardisty from Steele City. Perhaps someone with more knowledge or time to research could correct that number. 70.79.83.5 (talk) 03:41, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

"America has built the equivalent of 10 Keystone pipelines since 2010 — and nobody said anything" • Sbmeirow • Talk • 18:36, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

"Sand Hills" or "Sandhills"?

Hi. In a short perusing of the article, I found that Sandhills/Sand Hills was spelled in different ways. We should probably straighten this out, but I'm not sure which one to use. Devinthepeng (talk) 00:33, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Obama's veto of the Keystone XL segment amounted to nothing?

Is OpEdNews a reliable source? This seems like it belongs in this article somewhere. I'm having a bit of difficulty comprehending all this without a nice diagram, but apparently some sort of Canada-to-Gulf-coast pipeline already got completed anyway through Enbridge-owned segments constructed thanks to an Executive Order and which managed to sidestep the NEPA review process entirely? Having a look at Enbridge's own pipeline maps, it appears they have a pipeline running from the Alberta tar sands all the way to Chicago, Illinois and then back to Cushing, Oklahoma to connect with the rest of the Keystone pipeline segments.174.45.178.216 (talk) 05:58, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

And I see now that someone brought up something similar in the above section.174.45.178.216 (talk) 04:47, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Keystone Pipeline. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:49, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Image in the infobox out of date

File:Keystone-pipeline-route.png - appears to be out of date.

Says part will be built in 2015, it is now 2016.

Sagecandor (talk) 02:16, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Keystone Pipeline. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:56, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Citation 135

"First Nations and American Indian Leaders Arrested In Front Of White House To Protest Keystone XL Pipeline". Bioterrorism Week. (Sept. 19, 2011): p11. Academic OneFile. Retrieved 23 April 2012.

Unfortunately, you have to have an Academic OneFile login to access the source. I recommend replacing the citation w/ a publicly-accessible source. CitationKneaded (talk) 05:29, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

"Arrested for protesting"

"On September 19, 2011, a number of leaders from Native American bands in the United States and First Nations bands from Canada were arrested for protesting the Keystone XL outside the White House. "

Were they actually arrested for protesting, or were they doing something illegal during protesting that got them arrested? The language of the section makes it seem like the former, & sounds heavily biased. I tried looking at the citation, but the source is behind a password-wall, & I could not find the story online to independently verify it. CitationKneaded (talk) 05:35, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Citation 78

The last few links in the 78th citation link to pages that don't exist anymore. Consider replacing. Hmthorner (talk) 02:40, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Keystone Pipeline. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:30, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Keystone Pipeline. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:11, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Current status of KeystoneXL

Since there is no longer a presidential objection to KeystoneXL, has construction begun? Is it scheduled to begin? The article should describe the project's current status. 75.163.129.230 (talk) 19:10, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Keystone Pipeline. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:26, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:41, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Phase 4 section

The Phase 4 section moves directly from Obama's decision to the judges' rejection of Trump's plan. This flow doesn't say what happened in the middle, i.e. that Trump "signed presidential memoranda to revive both Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines". I would rather someone more knowledgeable on the subject looked at this. —Ynhockey (Talk) 09:24, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

current leak not listed

typical wiki faailure — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.191.14 (talk) 08:55, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Is this article about the pipeline or environmental issues surrounding fossil fuels?

I find very little in this article to answer the basic questions someone might ask about KXL. In fact, the vast majority of paragraphs do not even mention KXL. Instead, it seems to be a one-sided presentation of arguments surrounding the environmental impact of fossil fuels. I agree with much of what is said, but a one-paragraph summary with a link to another article would be more appropriate. I'm afraid that the value of Wikipedia is greatly eroded by articles like this. Let's focus on the titular subject of the page. 

         WarrenGaebel (talk) 22:25, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

There is so much very fine grain detail about construction of the pipeline. Now that it's built, it seems that the article should lead with a summary of both infrastructure (X miles carrying X bbl/d), incidents (X leaks greater than 100 bbl totalling Y bbl.), and stats that situate the pipeline in the larger context of the energy supply/infrastructure to which it contributes (X% of US pipeline capacity). In general, I would think the environmental record is way more important than any permitting and construction phase-level details once the pipeline has oil flowing through it. As is, it seems like the salient details a reader is most likely to be interested in are buried far down the page and obscured by details that are no longer relevant. 63.152.2.138 (talk) 02:56, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Extremely one-sided and possibly outdated

This article doesn't discuss the controversy surrounding Biden's executive order to halt construction. Social media, News articles and plain logic are ignored here. In points:

1. Oil will now have to be transported via railway or truck, which will have an even greater impact on the environment than the pipeline would have.

2. The Canadian government, including Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, is disappointed that President Joe Biden chose to cancel it.

3. It doesn't address the job losses. It will add to the number of people already unemployed due the coronavirus.

4. Many of the jobs lost were high-paying and were going to last a long time.

5. Green energy jobs that some people claim will replace these jobs aren't currently available — Preceding unsigned comment added by PierreOde (talk • contribs) 18:26, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

  1. ^ Suzanne Goldenberg (January 18, 2012). "Keystone XL pipeline: Obama rejects controversial project". The Guardian (UK). Retrieved January 20, 2012.
  2. ^ Brian Montopoli (January 18, 2012). "Obama denies Keystone XL pipeline permit". CBS News. Retrieved January 20, 2012.
  3. ^ Nicholas Loris (January 18, 2012). "Obama's 'Forced' Keystone Decision Rejects Jobs, Energy, and Logic". The National Review. Retrieved January 20, 2012.
  4. ^ "Obama's Keystone pipeline rejection is hard to accept". The Washington Post. January 19, 2012. Retrieved January 20, 2012.
  5. ^ http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/02/13/democrats-who-oppose-keystone-xl-pipeline-own-shares-in-competing-companies/
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Keystone_Pipeline/Archive_1&oldid=1136874003"