Talk:Keystone Pipeline

Related News Articles

List of related useful news articles. Please include Article Name / Article Source / Article Publish Date, but please don't quote text from the article (we all know how to click on the link and read the article).

2010

• Reliance on Oil Sands Grows Despite Environmental Risks; NY Times, published May 18, 2010.

2011

• Environment Canada and the Oil Sands; Canada; published May 2011. 99.181.153.29 (talk) 05:18, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
• EPA Seeks Expanded Review of Proposed Oil Sands Pipeline; NY Times; published June 7, 2011.
• TransCanada Pipeline Foes See U.S. Bias in E-Mails; NY Times; published October 3, 2011.
• Encircle the White House Nov. 6; The Progressive; published October 20, 2011. 99.109.126.73 (talk) 22:14, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
• Pipeline Protesters Form Human Chain Around White House; Wall Street Journal; published November 6, 2011.
• Keystone XL Pipeline Decision to Be Investigated; NY Times; published November 8, 2011. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 23:09, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
• Keystone XL: Pipe Dreams; Business Week; published November 10, 2011. 141.218.36.56 (talk) 22:41, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
• Republican-led US House defies Obama on payroll tax; Reuters; published December 13, 2011.
• In Internal Canadian Documents, a Warning on Oil Sands; NY Times; published December 22, 2011.
• ‘Secret’ Environment Canada study warns of oil sands’ impact on habitat, Financial Post; published December 22, 2011.
• Politics Stamps Out Oil Sands Pipeline, Yet It Seems Likely to Endure; NY Times; published December 24, 2011. 99.190.86.5 (talk) 04:24, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

2012

• Canada’s commitment to diversify our energy markets; National Resources Canada; published January 9, 2012.
• Oil Sands Foes Are Foes of Canada, Minister Says; NY Times; published Janary 9, 2012.

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)

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)

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. 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.

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)

Source consolidation

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)