|
FAUXTON posted:I'm not one to cheer on prison rape but I'm really hoping this guy ends up somewhere extremely uncomfortable and dies a lingering death from untreated hepatitis and a weeping staph infection on his taint. He'll end up in a resort. No way he sees anything rougher than the poor part of the Hamptons.
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 05:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 7, 2024 02:04 |
|
|
420DD Butts posted:He'll end up in a resort. No way he sees anything rougher than the poor part of the Hamptons. Maybe he'll pull a Ken Lay but die alone in his living room after an unresolved argument with his wife/kids, wracked with a paralyzing feeling of doom as his chest begins to feel like it's caught in a vise, his last conscious thought being the terrifying realization that he's actually going to die on his beautiful marble kitchen floor instead of being able to make amends with his family, and what a waste his lifetime of greed has been.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 06:06
|
|
|
Stereotype posted:oh no we keep driving these trains full of explosives into your towns and then they keep exploding. we can't make them stop!! they just keep exploding and destroying homes and killing people, help!! they are unstoppable! Well, I would much rather have a tube of limitless cocaine flowing through my town than have coyotes ship it to us via slaves and murder. It's not like we can stop sniffing the cocaine or burning the oil.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 06:56
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Remember that Freedom Industries spill? poo poo. Poor guy's going to have to pay so many lawyers that he'll have to give up champagne blowjobs for a whole month.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 07:09
|
|
|
Zeroisanumber posted:poo poo. Poor guy's going to have to pay so many lawyers that he'll have to give up champagne blowjobs for a whole month. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0Sj0Tl0TEg
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 07:27
|
|
|
KXL supporters are very, very lucky that Americans are too stupid to understand what an international commodity is, and why it won't have any effect on oil prices or energy independence.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 17:20
|
|
|
Isn't everyone ignoring the most important issue - national security? Dozens of ISIS agents could be swimming down that pipeline every day.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 18:56
|
|
|
HOW DO WE KNOW CANADIAN IMMIGRANTS AND DRUG SMUGGLERS WON'T USE THE PIPELINE!?!?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 19:56
|
|
|
Build the pipeline but replace the oil with weed smoke Then have public taps at regular intervals
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 23:52
|
|
|
That poo poo would get hella stale. It'd be like the national infrastructure equivalent of the guy who puts his hand over the top of the bong to "save the smoke' for later. No one wants that poo poo, guy. (except me. I'm that guy)
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 00:14
|
|
|
So can someone who is not fishmech explain how "Well trains and trucks spill/explode too" is an argument for pipelines? I would think just the simp,e fact of scale would be obvious why spilling 8000 gallons from a truck is preferable to a pipe pouring a million or more gallons into a river/aquifer/gulf Mexico? I don't see how anyone thinks this is an actual argument.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 02:21
|
|
|
Toasticle posted:So can someone who is not fishmech explain how "Well trains and trucks spill/explode too" is an argument for pipelines?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 02:28
|
|
|
Toasticle posted:So can someone who is not fishmech explain how "Well trains and trucks spill/explode too" is an argument for pipelines? I would think just the simp,e fact of scale would be obvious why spilling 8000 gallons from a truck is preferable to a pipe pouring a million or more gallons into a river/aquifer/gulf Mexico? The spill argument is retarded, but a pipeline is a hell of a lot more efficient than shipping oil any other way. Here in MN, farmers are having problems getting their crops to market because so much rolling stock is dedicated to shipping North Dakota oil that they can't get a train to load them on.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 02:30
|
|
|
In my mind the amount of pipelines we already have and the positive economic impact from the massive quantities of stuff they transport mitigates the occasional spill somewhat. These substances are going to be transported somehow if there is money to be made and people that need energy. A Pipeline is much more efficient than trucks. Should they be heavily regulated and inspected? Yes. Should companies be heavily fined when poo poo does happen? Yes. But how is this pipeline so much worse than any other. Is it kind of a straw that broke the camels back scenario or does Keystone XL really pose a unique danger? If your view is that this stuff should not be transported at all...I'm sorry that's just not realistic any time soon. On the other hand the idea that this would create trillions of permanent jobs or lower oil prices is complete bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 02:43
|
|
|
crabcakes66 posted:But how is this pipeline so much worse than any other. Is it kind of a straw that broke the camels back scenario or does Keystone XL really pose a unique danger? For me it's the former. It's not such a huge deal in either direction but the energy industry really, really needs to be handed a defeat, because they think government exists to do their bidding.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 02:44
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:I think the argument is that the oil is going to be transported no matter what, and a pipeline is the least explodey and least expensive way to transport oil. Its honestly not clear that pipelines are actually the safest way to transport oil: quote:Crude oil is moving around the world, around our country, around pristine wilderness, around our cities and towns. It’s going to keep moving, will undoubtedly increase during our new energy boom, so what is the safest way to move it? (http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2014/04/26/pick-your-poison-for-crude-pipeline-rail-truck-or-boat/) Zeroisanumber posted:The spill argument is retarded, but a pipeline is a hell of a lot more efficient than shipping oil any other way. Here in MN, farmers are having problems getting their crops to market because so much rolling stock is dedicated to shipping North Dakota oil that they can't get a train to load them on. I keep hearing that story, but you don't really see that big of a difference when you look at bulk shipments. Is it just low margin producers being squeezed out? Or perishables getting delayed?   crabcakes66 posted:But how is this pipeline so much worse than any other. Is it kind of a straw that broke the camels back scenario or does Keystone XL really pose a unique danger? KXL is different than most pipelines because of what it is carrying in it (far more difficult to clean up) bitumen. Also the routing is unique for a pipeline of its size and length. But more importantly, the bill to force KXL to be approved also exempts KXL from all federal regulation. That's reason alone to reject the bill.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 03:51
|
|
|
With existing train and truck and pipeline infrastructure the tar sands are able to export a certain amount of their product a day, nearly all of which will be burnt releasing a certain amount of carbon dioxide. Well call that x. With keystone they'll be able to export some greater amount, in addition to their current capacity, because keystone will supplement not replace existing transport capacity. Call that x + y. Thing is there are a lot of people who think any amount of tar sands oil being exported and burnt is bad, so necessarily they would prefer it be capped at x, rather than explode to x + y. They can't realistically have zero but they'll settle for x. Juul-Whip fucked around with this message at 04:04 on Feb 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 03:59
|
|
|
THC posted:With keystone they'll be able to export some greater amount, in addition to their current capacity, because keystone will supplement not replace existing transport capacity. Call that x + y.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 04:12
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Not necessarily true. Production does not increase infinitely with transport capability. There is every reason to believe a pipeline sufficient to meet the current transport demands would replace at least a significant portion truck and train transport. That was more obvious of a conclusion when the price of oil was through the roof. Now oil sands producers are losing money and any cut in costs might actually increase production.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 04:20
|
|
|
Let's not kid ourselves, the plan quite clearly is for production to increase infinitely until the oil is all gone.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 04:20
|
|
|
THC posted:Let's not kid ourselves, the plan quite clearly is for production to increase infinitely until the oil is all gone. That's not how production, resources or extraction really works. Your production rates decline as you work the harder and harder to get resources. Also, we'll probably never "get all the oil". Besides, new oil sand mining has dropped significantly since the price of oil crashed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 04:32
|
|
|
Okay. Until about 4 months ago, the plan was for production to increase infinitely until the feasibly accessible oil is all gone. And yes, production has dropped, because it is not economical with the price at $50. This is good. We don't want it to be economical, we want the carbon to stay in the ground.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 04:44
|
|
|
THC posted:Okay. Until about 4 months ago, the plan was for production to increase infinitely until the feasibly accessible oil is all gone. You're kind of boned for a catch 22 there. Cheap oil means people burn more, and expensive oil allows new reserves to be exploited.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 04:56
|
|
|
That's true, but, when the price does go back up, if these pipelines aren't built then they will be faced with the same bottlenecks and hurdles in getting their product to market. They will be forced to tap the proverbial brakes, rather than stomping on the gas as is their plan. Obviously we as Canadians and Americans can't do much about Saudi Arabia and other overseas suppliers of cheap oil, but we are at least able to hamstring the tar sands to an extent.
Juul-Whip fucked around with this message at 05:09 on Feb 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 05:06
|
|
|
THC posted:That's true, but, when the price does go back up, if these pipelines aren't built then they will be faced with the same bottlenecks and hurdles in getting their product to market. They will be forced to tap the proverbial brakes, rather than stomping on the gas as is their plan. You're aware the current pipelines aren't running at full capacity right? They wouldn't need to "tap the brakes".
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 05:08
|
|
|
THC posted:That's true, but, when the price does go back up, if these pipelines aren't built then they will be faced with the same bottlenecks and hurdles in getting their product to market. They will be forced to tap the proverbial brakes, rather than stomping on the gas as is their plan.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 05:10
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:You're aware the current pipelines aren't running at full capacity right? They wouldn't need to "tap the brakes". He's here, everyone pipe down.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 05:10
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Or someone will just build more rolling stock. If there's money to be made railroad companies will expand to meet that demand.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 05:11
|
|
|
THC posted:Still a lot less economical and boner-inducing to tar sands producers than Keystone, Northern Gateway, Trans Mountain et al.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 05:15
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:This just strikes me as a weird argument. It's artificial inflation of oil prices via intentional failure to develop infrastructure. That doesn't help anything. It's just red team/blue team point scoring. No, it wouldn't inflate oil prices. No idea why you think it would. It loosely raises the price for the one sort of oil from the one location but that's fractions of a percent.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 05:18
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Or someone will just build more rolling stock. If there's money to be made railroad companies will expand to meet that demand. Actually this is an interesting point of contention. The railroads don't own most of the oil tanker rolling stock, the producers, refineries and oil industry service companies do. The railroads are just common carriers that have to accept the shipments if they meet federal standards.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 05:18
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Actually this is an interesting point of contention. The railroads don't own most of the oil tanker rolling stock, the producers, refineries and oil industry service companies do. The railroads are just common carriers that have to accept the shipments if they meet federal standards.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 05:34
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Consider me educated. So where is the bottleneck in shipping? Is it a shortage of tank cars,a shortage of locomotives to pull them, or a shortage of track to fit it all on? I think its a shortage of track, tank car construction capacity (to build the new "safer" ones) and switching capacity (since only one train can occupy a switch at a time) all combined. Which is why I believe some railroad users are getting hosed hardcore, even if the total numbers don't show it. Some specific areas will be very congested and since the oil companies are willing to outbid most other customers, its easy for both margin customers to get outbid outright for normal deliveries or track congestion and switching limitations to cause bizarre delays for the service level you can afford. Imagine being a farming coop in bumfuck ND that has always used the spur off the mainline that was built in the 30s. All and good and cheap rail service because its easy for the railroad to switch over to your spur in between mainline trains. Except now all of a sudden, oil producers look at that mainline's max capacity and built their rail transfer station to fit. Now they're running trains as often as they can (in between the other mainline customers) there's now no time to switch to your spur and load/unload your grain. The glass factory down the road, they'll still get their sillica shipments (or use trucks) because they'll pay the premium, but you can't because grain isn't worth poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 05:58
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Consider me educated. So where is the bottleneck in shipping? Is it a shortage of tank cars,a shortage of locomotives to pull them, or a shortage of track to fit it all on? It's mostly bottlenecking other stuff that wants to use the railroads. Oil companies are more than happy to pay large amounts to ensure they get priority.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 05:58
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:I think the argument is that the oil is going to be transported no matter what, and a pipeline is the least explodey and least expensive way to transport oil. But again, scale. Pipelines may be less 'explodey' but they burst/break/leak fairly frequently and the damage is orders of magnitude more severe. Just counting the ones that make the news it's years of cleanup or killing off a significant chunk of life In the gulf, unless my memory is misfiring a bitumen spill in Canada essentially made an entire town uninhabitable. I don't see how that's ok because hey, a truck could have exploded damaging everything near it so that means a pipe that will just turn a massive section of land into a poison wasteland for years is therefore ok. They all have accidents and maybe I'm just a tree hugging hippy but the answer would seem to be you use the least damaging system of transport. If it's to slow and impacts profits tough poo poo, until you make pipes safe enough to not render the loving water supply poison for massive chunks of civilization then you don't get to use them. Toasticle fucked around with this message at 15:55 on Mar 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 15:53
|
|
|
Toasticle posted:But again, scale. Pipelines may be less 'explodey' but they burst/break/leak fairly frequently and the damage is orders of magnitude more severe. Just counting the ones that make the news it's years of cleanup or killing off a significant chunk of life In the gulf, unless my memory is misfiring a bitumen spill in Canada essentially made an entire town uninhabitable. I don't see how that's ok because hey, a truck could have exploded damaging everything near it so that means a pipe that will just turn a massive section of land into a poison wasteland for years is therefore ok. If you actually did the math on how much more material a pipeline transported vs other overland methods I'm betting they would look better from an environmental standpoint. It's still the best way to transport this poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 00:34
|
|
|
Toasticle posted:make pipes safe enough to not render the loving water supply poison for massive chunks of civilization
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 00:39
|
|
|
crabcakes66 posted:If you actually did the math on how much more material a pipeline transported vs other overland methods I'm betting they would look better from an environmental standpoint. It's still the best way to transport this poo poo. Someone did that math, and it depends on how you define "harm": quote:Crude oil is moving around the world, around our country, around pristine wilderness, around our cities and towns. It’s going to keep moving, will undoubtedly increase during our new energy boom, so what is the safest way to move it? (http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2014/04/26/pick-your-poison-for-crude-pipeline-rail-truck-or-boat/)
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 00:45
|
|
|
I wonder if they counted oil lost at the terminals for those spillage figures. I would have figured that fewer handling steps would have resulted in less spillage. What happened between 1990 and 2007 that changed the numbers for rail transport so dramatically? Rent-A-Cop fucked around with this message at 00:52 on Mar 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 00:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 7, 2024 02:04 |
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:I wonder if they counted oil lost at the terminals for those spillage figures. I would have figured that fewer handling steps would have resulted in less spillage. From the API researched cited in the CRS research cited in that forbes article (http://www.api.org/environment-health-and-safety/clean-water/oil-spill-prevention-and-response/~/media/93371EDFB94C4B4D9C6BBC766F0C4A40.ashx) it appears that its part that railcars have systems to capture small spillage in loading/unloading and that oil pipelines as a category includes "gathering pipes, transmission pipes, breakout tanks, pump stations, and tank farms directly associated with and operated by pipeline companies. Offshore pipelines are considered separately under offshore exploration and production." Which, if you've ever walked around an old oil field, you know that gathering pipes can get pretty leaky.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 01:05
|
|