|
We have to do Keystone-XL because if there is an opportunity to take Indian Lands in violation of a treaty, America is obligated to do it. On the safety question, I think this forbes article is the best at delineating the confusing statistics: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2014/04/26/pick-your-poison-for-crude-pipeline-rail-truck-or-boat/ posted:The short answer is: truck worse than train worse than pipeline worse than boat (Oilprice.com). But that’s only for human death and property destruction. For the normalized amount of oil spilled, it’s truck worse than pipeline worse than rail worse than boat (Congressional Research Service). Different yet again is for environmental impact (dominated by impact to aquatic habitat), where it’s boat worse than pipeline worse than truck worse than rail.
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2015 17:52
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 19, 2024 06:54 |
|
|
Really guys, in this day and age I think if we don't give specific companies exemptions from laws they don't like, what will America become?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2015 23:17
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:You realize that this only requires federal approval because it's international right? Tons of pipelines are being built to transport the same stuff across the same areas that are domestic. This is an incredibly stupid fight to put up. All those domestic oil sands oil pipelines.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2015 01:30
|
|
|
Feral_Shofixti posted:It's a super cheap pipe from Canada that will super safely carry super clean shale oil from Alberta through territory illegally occupied by Indians to the refineries of the oil companies in the Gulf for the betterment of all. Excuse me, its not shale oil but oil sands oil. Please don't call it tar sands either, it hurts people's feelings and thats not allowed on a Canadian project of this scale!
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2015 08:57
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Nothing is greener than a coal mining company fighting an oil drilling company. Ah yes, because if we import more crude oil, we'll burn less coal 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2015 23:05
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:That statement was meant ironically, as in, nothing presents themselves as green as a coal company etc. Thus the catchy .org names. Cloud Peak Energy sounds the greenest to me 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2015 00:05
|
|
|
Unfortunately, the Kalamazoo river spill is the proof positive that dilbit is difficult to clean up.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2015 06:45
|
|
|
SHISHKABOB posted:how about by plane? Carrying oil by plane would be the best way to help open Northwest passage.  We must now do it because it would help Canadian companies, which is of course our sworn duty.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2015 18:43
|
|
|
Notice that even the trolls can't come up with good reasons to give Keystone a free pass through the regulatory process, they can only try and pretend that risk analysis isn't a thing.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2015 07:22
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Because nobody said that, genius. Its impressive your willingness to argue about a topic you don't even understand. Well, in the same way someone constantly shoving a door labeled "pull" is impressive.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2015 02:39
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Kindly cite where anyone in this thread said "no pipelines should be subject to any regulations". I was unaware this was the "pipeline regulation megathread" and not the keystone xl thread. Someone should do a thread title change.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2015 02:47
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Where did you see anyone in this thread saying Keystone XL in particular should have no regulations? quote:The Final Supplemental You can bicker with people about who said what when in this thread, meanwhile you avoid actually making an argument in favor of the bill in question.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2015 03:30
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:What Phillips pipeline? We're talking about Bridger's Poplar system, right? A small(ish) diameter intrastate transmission system subject only to state regulation? What does that have to do with a deep, large diameter international PHMSA regulated line? quote:The Final Supplemental So yes, Keystone will be a PHMSA regulated line, if Obama gets his way.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2015 03:52
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Looks like the poplar system is interstate even if that line in intrastate so PHMSA is inspecting their procedures. They weren't happy. At all. They might get fined....$3 Million dollars! still better than labor fines
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2015 17:24
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:(the transport capability is already present, dude) So you admit KXXL isn't needed
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2015 03:07
|
|
|
Spun Dog posted:Horrifying. We'll never have a pipeline that's even close to safe until we can trust corporations to put health over profit. On a related note the super safe process of fracking may have just poisoned over 100 of the aquifers in central California, 11 wells have been shut down and another 100 are under review. That should help the drought. Technically, its not fracing that caused the potential contamination, but waste water injection associated with fracing. Its an important distinction since we're talking about two very different kinds of wells. And the reason those aquifers might be polluted is due to poor recordskeeping rather than technological failures: quote:Those are the aquifers at issue today. The exempted aquifers, according to documents the state filed with the U.S. EPA in 1981 and obtained by ProPublica, were poorly defined and ambiguously outlined. They were often identified by hand-drawn lines on a map, making it difficult to know today exactly which bodies of water were supposed to be protected, and by which aspects of the governing laws. Those exemptions and documents were signed by California Gov. Jerry Brown, who also was governor in 1981. (from the propublica article) So maybe we should upgrade our maps from "hand drawn," I'd be down.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2015 00:57
|
|
|
Keith Stone posted:You can get Keystone in XL what? Cans or kegs? 36s duh.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2015 21:50
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 19, 2024 06:54 |
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Yeah, it seems odd to include those since they are a part of every transport system and not specific to large pipelines. Yeah, but the category isn't large pipes but onshore and coastal pipes. The API's point was "look how much less we're spilling than we used to! And also seeps are worse!" So it makes sense to include if you're trying to show how much better things are now.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2015 01:34
|
|