| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
BGfangirl
Joined: 19 May 2010
Posts: 577
Back to top |
 Posted: 02/26/15 4:17 am ::: |
Reply  |
|
| Goes through Native American land so hellllll no.
_________________
There are some people who live in a dream world, and there are some who face reality. And then there are those who turn one into the other.
|
|
TonyL222
Joined: 01 Oct 2007
Posts: 5140
Location: Reston, VA
Back to top |
| Posted: 02/26/15 8:20 am ::: |
Reply |
|
IMO, this is one Obama coulda given to the Repubs. Oil is ALREADY flowing from Canada by rail and truck - and we can see just how safe that can be:
Oil tanker cars involved in West Virginia train derailment...
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/02/18/oil-tanker-cars-involved-in-west-virginia-train-derailment-had-been-upgraded/
| Quote: |
| The derailment resulted in the evacuation of hundreds of families as 19 cars slammed into each other and caught fire, leaking oil into a Kanawha River tributary and burning down a nearby house. The area lost its drinking water and electricity, and fire crews said Tuesday they had little choice but to let the cars burn themselves out. |
Probably better to have it flowing through a contained pathway that can be checked and re-checked than by highway where anything can (and did) happen. Let them have this one[/b]
|
|
norwester
Joined: 14 Jun 2006
Posts: 6367
Location: Seattle
Back to top |
| Posted: 02/26/15 1:12 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Actually, each of these trucks has at least one person with it at all times. So we know right away when there's a spill and can respond. There's no way to check thousands of miles of pipeline the same way. Small leaks could be running for months before someone notices, sinking to the bottom of lakes and rivers virtually undetected. And inevitably parts of the pipeline break down. Does it become cheaper to replace thousands of miles of pipeline through constant, vigilant O&M, or is it more cost-effective to repair big leaks, or leaks in public places, and allow the small ones to go unchecked?
It's impossible to maintain a giant pipeline safely, in my opinion. I'm not saying there are no problems with other transport, but a truck has to run and meet highway standards. A driver is with it to report issues. I mean, I really feel for the folks who were evacuated, etc. But at least they did get evacuated, instead of noticing after months that their well-water tastes funny and has for a while, as incidences of childhood cancer go up.
_________________
Don't you know the plural of "anecdote" is "data"?
|
|
TonyL222
Joined: 01 Oct 2007
Posts: 5140
Location: Reston, VA
Back to top |
| Posted: 02/26/15 3:42 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| norwester wrote: |
Actually, each of these trucks has at least one person with it at all times. So we know right away when there's a spill and can respond. There's no way to check thousands of miles of pipeline the same way. Small leaks could be running for months before someone notices, sinking to the bottom of lakes and rivers virtually undetected. And inevitably parts of the pipeline break down. Does it become cheaper to replace thousands of miles of pipeline through constant, vigilant O&M, or is it more cost-effective to repair big leaks, or leaks in public places, and allow the small ones to go unchecked?
|
Not sure I buy all your suppositions. Pipeline would/could be regularly inspected just like railroads are. WHY would they ever have to replace thousands of miles of pipeline - as opposed to a small section? A truck could go off the road or be struck by another vehicle in an isolated areas and all persons could be killed. On the road, trucks have to contend with other drivers and road hazards, and would at some points be near populated areas. truck drivers are in road mishaps EVERY DAY - fatigue, alcohol, and through no fault of their own. Oil truck drivers would be no different. It would take THOUSANDS of trucks to equal the amount of oil transported through pipelines, thereby a) increasing the amount of CO2 released and b) greatly increasing the opportunity for mishaps.
The decision is really between the lessor of evils. As this article poses, you have to pick your poison:
Pick Your Poison For Crude -- Pipeline, Rail, Truck Or Boat
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2014/04/26/pick-your-poison-for-crude-pipeline-rail-truck-or-boat/
| Quote: |
| So it depends upon what your definition is for worse. Is it death and destruction? Is it amount of oil released? Is it land area or water volume contaminated? Is it habitat destroyed? Is it CO2 emitted? |
Also there's this:
| Quote: |
| [In Canada} Almost all (97%) of natural gas and petroleum products are transported by pipelines |
So why aren't Canadians reporting lots of environmental issues?
|
|
norwester
Joined: 14 Jun 2006
Posts: 6367
Location: Seattle
Back to top |
| Posted: 02/26/15 5:29 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| TonyL222 wrote: |
So why aren't Canadians reporting lots of environmental issues? |
Why would we hear about them if they were? It's not in their interest to publicize that. We barely hear about the ecological devastation fracking is currently creating, and that's right in OUR backyard, not another country.
Additionally, as someone who lives up near the Canadian border where international oil ships come into harbor, there are many that come in that CAN'T come to the US harbor because they don't meet US safety regulations. Canada's requirements are less. If there is no violation, I don't see why we'd hear about it. In the meantime, the US is trying to field a robust oil-response team up near the Strait of Juan de Fuca where any spill will inevitably migrate our way.
I'll grant you the "everyone being killed in a rural area" scenario with trucks, etc. I just think pipeline leaks are more inevitable. And it's a very permanent continuous feature. It affects more than just the possibility for oil spillage (e.g. migration routes for wildlife). And politically, it's a non-starter due to the Native American lands it crosses.
If it's just either/or anyway, then leave it like it is. I don't see any benefits overall to the pipeline (except to oil companies).
_________________
Don't you know the plural of "anecdote" is "data"?
|
|
norwester
Joined: 14 Jun 2006
Posts: 6367
Location: Seattle
Back to top |
| Posted: 02/26/15 5:39 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Also, I can see from reading the article, that we're talking about lives and dollars versus the environment. I guess as someone who has worked in Hazardous Waste clean-up, this portion is what resonates with me:
| Quote: |
| So the Quebec train derailment cost over $400 million in human life, and will cost another $150 million or so for clean-up and rebuilding the town. The Enbridge pipeline cost no human lives but will cost about a billion dollars to clean-up and, like the Exxon Valdez, will never really succeed. |
I'm not trying to devalue human life and property, but the fact remains that we're always creating more humans and property. We only have one environment, which I see pipelines as more dangerous for.
I have a question: wouldn't it be cheaper to build new refineries closer to the source versus this pipeline?
_________________
Don't you know the plural of "anecdote" is "data"?
|
|
TonyL222
Joined: 01 Oct 2007
Posts: 5140
Location: Reston, VA
Back to top |
| Posted: 02/26/15 6:34 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
personally, I don't know you can say we're better off with one transportation method over the other. Each has its drawbacks. No matter which you choose you don't significantly lesson a chance of disaster, IMHO.
So let the Repubs win this one. Could have tied his support (non-veto) to favorable support of a comprehensive immigration bill. Quid pro quo. Pick your battles - and this isn't one I'd have chosen to battle over.
|
|
Howee
Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 15739
Location: OREGON (in my heart)
Back to top |
| Posted: 02/26/15 11:10 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| norwester wrote: |
| If it's just either/or anyway, then leave it like it is. I don't see any benefits overall to the pipeline (except to oil companies). |
Eco-safety concerns notwithstanding, I'd still be interested in hearing/seeing real facts on precisely who DOES benefit from this, and how much each party has to gain. Really. The Jobs Created seems to lie anywhere between 35 and "thousands", depending on who's telling the story. Are Americans getting a bargain on oil from Canada?
I have yet to hear anyone, anywhere explain something really believable as to precisely who will benefit the most from this, and in what ways that might manifest itself. Help?
_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
"Inévitablement, les canards voleront"
|
|
TonyL222
Joined: 01 Oct 2007
Posts: 5140
Location: Reston, VA
Back to top |
| Posted: 02/27/15 6:13 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| Howee wrote: |
I have yet to hear anyone, anywhere explain something really believable as to precisely who will benefit the most from this, and in what ways that might manifest itself. Help? |
Well Canada is our #1 oil import country - far ahead of #2 Saudi Arabia. But who benefits most financially? Maybe that is at the heart of Obama's decision - and maybe it was political:
Koch Brothers Positioned To Be Big Winners If Keystone XL Pipeline Is Approved
http://www.newfuelist.com/link/~115x#.VPBPT_kc6f8
| Quote: |
| What's been left out of the ferocious debate over the pipeline, however, is the prospect that if president Obama allows a permit for the Keystone XL to be granted, he would be handing a big victory and great financial opportunity to Charles and David Koch, his bitterest political enemies and among the most powerful opponents of his clean economy agenda. |
|
|
Howee
Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 15739
Location: OREGON (in my heart)
Back to top |
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66918
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
|
cthskzfn
Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 12851
Location: In a world where a PSYCHOpath like Trump isn't potus.
Back to top |
| Posted: 09/22/15 8:26 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| What O'Malley said.
_________________
Silly, stupid white people might be waking up.
|
|
norwester
Joined: 14 Jun 2006
Posts: 6367
Location: Seattle
Back to top |
| Posted: 09/23/15 2:12 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| cthskzfn wrote: |
| What O'Malley said. |
Nevertheless, I'm pleased.
_________________
Don't you know the plural of "anecdote" is "data"?
|
|
beknighted
Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 11050
Location: Lost in D.C.
Back to top |
| Posted: 09/23/15 2:44 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
O'Malley is just trying to get anyone to pay attention to him. (Good luck with that.)
And his argument that she's just sticking her finger in the wind isn't fantastic, either. The polling on Keystone isn't exactly definitive, as it's not precisely top of mind for most people, but it's generally shown Democrats to be split and Republicans to be very much in favor of it.
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66918
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
| Posted: 05/18/20 6:16 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Biden White House would yank Keystone XL permit
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/05/18/biden-white-house-keystone-xl-permit-265041
| Quote: |
| “Biden strongly opposed the Keystone pipeline in the last administration, stood alongside President Obama and Secretary Kerry to reject it in 2015, and will proudly stand in the Roosevelt Room again as President and stop it for good by rescinding the Keystone XL pipeline permit,” Biden campaign policy director Stef Feldman said in a written statement to POLITICO. |
_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
|
|
