Notices
Results 1 to 22 of 22
Like Tree1Likes
  • 1 Post By madanthonywayne

Thread: Keystone Oil Pipeline

  1. #1 Keystone Oil Pipeline 
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    I've been reading a lot on the Keystone XL pipeline from Canada to Texas and I'm having a hard time with a couple things.

    Firstly, I cannot seem to find a story about the pipeline that is not dramatized or politicized with a clear motivation to either per- or dissuade me from approval of such a project. I'm primarily interested in a breakdown of the number and kinds of jobs created as well as their expected duration, the costs/profits for our country (not simply oil companies), potential hazards, and the environmental ramifications. Yet, all I seem to get are people spouting off about how it is good or evil.

    Secondly, I'm not particularly interested in politics as I find the whole process mostly counterproductive. What are the political ramifications of proceeding with such a project or denying it? Is this pipeline really even that important? I've heard suggestions that President Obama's entire environmental legacy rests upon this decision.

    My stance on oil is one of trying to ween a person off a dangerous substance. I don't have a problem with rising gas prices driving development of more efficient engines or new fuel research. Personally, I think our number one energy priority should STILL be a more efficient grid. A cyclic power delivery layout that leads to fewer, smaller power losses which can be located, isolated, and repaired more quickly. I just don't view importing more oil from sands projects which are already fairly inefficient to be a front burner topic.

    So, does anyone have the patience to explain some of this to me without the garbage faux media outlets polluting (no pun intended) the issue with biased reporting?


    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Is this pipeline really even that important?
    Excellent question, I don't believe it is. I guess the fuss is partially fueled ...er, funded?... by competing companies: Others have alternative plans to move the oil through BC (highly politicized demonstrators here too), so we could be watching pawns played to sabotage one vision or another.


    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,324
    Think wiki at present does a pretty good job of laying out the subject.

    supporters:
    -oil companies making a buck
    -conservatives who think the US needs the oil to maintain economic independent
    -states who look forwards to the increased building and pipeline maintenance jobs
    -oil shale companies for Canada and US who'll be able to use the pipeline

    Opponent:
    -oil producing nations outside North America, who see loss of influence as the oil floods global markets
    -environmental groups who don't want pipelines going over sensitive aquifers, don't want additional development of CO2 producing oil shales, or don't want clear cutting and strip mining required to extract the coal.
    Last edited by Lynx_Fox; February 22nd, 2013 at 10:39 AM.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,338
    Right, and 5/6 of those players have their nemesis, because "not to the Gulf" effectively means "to the Pacific". How can Northern Gateway derail Keystone? Add a third player to the fray, Kinder Morgan/Enron, whom explicitly promote a Vancouver/Seattle destination on the basis theirs bypasses opposition in the US.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,324
    If true Morgan/Enron probably have a bridge to sell us as well. There are coal shipping projects being canceled left and right around Seattle--the people are hotly against them.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Nashville
    Posts
    317
    The Keystone pipeline is a good thing. We need oil at reasonable prices.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Colyer View Post
    The Keystone pipeline is a good thing. We need oil at reasonable prices.
    I disagree with the last part. I think a spike in prices is a great way to facilitate change and conservation of the resource.

    What we really need is more responsible petroleum use, not simply cheaper petroleum.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,789
    So far everything that has come on line in the past 25 years, which is allot of new oil, has NOT decreased the prices of oil anywhere except in socialist countries.
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
    Jimi Hendrix
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    So far everything that has come on line in the past 25 years, which is allot of new oil, has NOT decreased the prices of oil anywhere except in socialist countries.
    I find the notion that the pipeline will significantly decrease prices to be dubious at best.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,324
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Colyer View Post
    The Keystone pipeline is a good thing. We need oil at reasonable prices.
    Oil is a global commodity. The effect of the pipeline would reduce prices by only a couple pennies per gallon.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    120
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post

    Opponent:
    -environmental groups who don't want pipelines going over sensitive aquifers, don't want additional development of CO2 producing oil shales, or don't want clear cutting and strip mining required to extract the coal.
    Is it really environmentally sound to oppose a pipeline when one considers the fact that a pipeline is the safest way to transport oil? Is it somehow better for the environment for the oil to be trucked or shipped to its destination rather than travel via pipeline? Does anyone really think that stopping this pipeline will stop the development of the oil sands? Our entire civilization runs on oil. We are going to go get it whether it must be shipped, trucked, or travel by camel.
    zinjanthropos likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Malignant Pimple shlunka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Dogbox in front of Dywyddyr's house.
    Posts
    1,784
    You may also be interested in the oil-sands in Canada? Though I imagine you're already aware. I'll be impressed when Keystone makes a pipeline for beer.
    "MODERATOR NOTE : We don't entertain trolls here, not even in the trash can. Banned." -Markus Hanke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Ph.D. stander-j's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Winnipeg
    Posts
    854
    As a Canadian who grew up in an oil town, who worked in the oil industry, and who knows a number of people who work in the oil industry... I can say without a doubt I am rather ashamed to not the answer to this one. But, as I understand things, the USA has started looking into Fracking - and Fracking is showing some promising results, especially in terms of oil quality. What does that mean for Alberta? Alberta is kind of worried because the USA is Canada's biggest buyer of oil, and Canada doesn't exactly have any oversea markets. I think Keystone is a jump to try and ensure a continued American market for a while longer. What I do know is that Alberta isn't taking any chances, a pipeline to Quebec is being refurbished to accommodate oil for refining (Which was traditionally a thing that the States did for us), and also to ensure an ability to ship to Europe. I've also heard some talk about a pipeline going out West for Japan. Granted, whether any of this is sensational fluff, or not, cannot be said. I do know that one of the more hysterical concerns was that the States will become entirely self-sufficient in oil production.
    "Cultivated leisure is the aim of man."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Ph.D. stander-j's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Winnipeg
    Posts
    854
    Quote Originally Posted by madanthonywayne View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post

    Opponent:
    -environmental groups who don't want pipelines going over sensitive aquifers, don't want additional development of CO2 producing oil shales, or don't want clear cutting and strip mining required to extract the coal.
    Is it really environmentally sound to oppose a pipeline when one considers the fact that a pipeline is the safest way to transport oil? Is it somehow better for the environment for the oil to be trucked or shipped to its destination rather than travel via pipeline? Does anyone really think that stopping this pipeline will stop the development of the oil sands? Our entire civilization runs on oil. We are going to go get it whether it must be shipped, trucked, or travel by camel.
    Is It? Exxon Pipeline Breaks in Arkansas - YouTube For some reason, I'm thinking trains are the safest way to transport oil.
    "Cultivated leisure is the aim of man."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    The Keystone pipeline travels through agricultural land, important aquifers, and fisheries if I'm not mistaken. I don't see how this could possibly be considered safe when there have been several failures of pipelines that I have seen.

    After all this time, I still fail to see the value of this pipeline.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    how, exactly, do you suppose the Dakota oil is now transported?
    It is estimate that with fracking, we have increased our "known" reserves many times over.

    Silly stuff, really, most of the "keystone" pipeline already exists.

    Bakkan oil production will increase many times over within a decade or 2 and need more pipelines running to those oil fields.
    Much of it's natural gas is burned off at the well heads-------and much of the oil is now trucked to pipelines---
    It seems stupid and wastefull to not connect to these fields with gas and oil pipelines to stop the silly wasteful trucking and flaring of the gas-----both of which add to global atmospheric forcing with no benefit to anyone.
    imho-----anyone trying to impeed infrstructure build out is playing a game that ain't in anyone else's best interest.
    It seems a decision to either optomize a resource, or waste much of it with silly stupid posturing.

    of course, i would prefer that we build another refinery in the Dakotas, and divert the oil there.
    or, expand the capacity of the extant refinery, for many reasons, not the least of which is the expected rise in sea levels, and the concept that if refined there, the likelyhood of it leaving our shores for markets overseas is diminished------------
    or, build gas fired electricity production plants, and couple that energy with the ever growing windfarm's electricity production, and take it to where we could replace coal fired plants.

    counterpoint:
    As a lad I had the pleasure of an aunt and uncle's old 40 acre pasture which had a natural spring and the beginnings of a forest(my uncle had plowed up furrows to catch seeds from a nearby forest, and it was producing an extension of that forest on his land). Returning there as an adult(post army) I found that there was a high voltage powerline with massive towers where once I had played----the construction of which had filled in the pond and spring, and replaced a little slice of heaven with energy transportation uglyness.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    120
    Quote Originally Posted by stander-j View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by madanthonywayne View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post

    Opponent:
    -environmental groups who don't want pipelines going over sensitive aquifers, don't want additional development of CO2 producing oil shales, or don't want clear cutting and strip mining required to extract the coal.
    Is it really environmentally sound to oppose a pipeline when one considers the fact that a pipeline is the safest way to transport oil? Is it somehow better for the environment for the oil to be trucked or shipped to its destination rather than travel via pipeline? Does anyone really think that stopping this pipeline will stop the development of the oil sands? Our entire civilization runs on oil. We are going to go get it whether it must be shipped, trucked, or travel by camel.
    Is It? Exxon Pipeline Breaks in Arkansas - YouTube For some reason, I'm thinking trains are the safest way to transport oil.
    One story about a pipeline leaking is supposed to mean something? Ever hear of train derailments?

    Also, what about the environmental impact of the inherent inefficiency of transporting oil via train as opposed to by pipeline? Clearly it requires many times more energy to transport oil by train than by pipe. It's like comparing bottled water to tap water.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Just an FYI, there have been more than 1 pipeline leaks recently. My concern arose as I heard multiple reports of breaks and leaks, not because I reacted to one news story.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    120
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Just an FYI, there have been more than 1 pipeline leaks recently. My concern arose as I heard multiple reports of breaks and leaks, not because I reacted to one news story.
    Of course there have been multiple pipeline leaks, it's an imperfect world. But a story about any particular leak doesn't tell us much about what method of transport is safest. This table gives a good picture:
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    You're barking up the wrong tree. I was just clarifying that my post wasn't created based upon one incident.

    That graph also means very little if it does not include the severity of the spill or the cost of cleanup.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,789
    Build a atomic breeder reactor, produce hydrogen from water, send that in tankers or pipe lines to wherever needed. That way you produce energy, don't ever pollute except for minor amounts of radioactive waste which can be properly disposed of and create a new clean energy source that can never ever run out.
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
    Jimi Hendrix
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Ph.D. stander-j's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Winnipeg
    Posts
    854
    Quote Originally Posted by madanthonywayne View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by stander-j View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by madanthonywayne View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post

    Opponent:
    -environmental groups who don't want pipelines going over sensitive aquifers, don't want additional development of CO2 producing oil shales, or don't want clear cutting and strip mining required to extract the coal.
    Is it really environmentally sound to oppose a pipeline when one considers the fact that a pipeline is the safest way to transport oil? Is it somehow better for the environment for the oil to be trucked or shipped to its destination rather than travel via pipeline? Does anyone really think that stopping this pipeline will stop the development of the oil sands? Our entire civilization runs on oil. We are going to go get it whether it must be shipped, trucked, or travel by camel.
    Is It? Exxon Pipeline Breaks in Arkansas - YouTube For some reason, I'm thinking trains are the safest way to transport oil.
    One story about a pipeline leaking is supposed to mean something? Ever hear of train derailments?

    Also, what about the environmental impact of the inherent inefficiency of transporting oil via train as opposed to by pipeline? Clearly it requires many times more energy to transport oil by train than by pipe. It's like comparing bottled water to tap water.
    To be fair, madanthonwayne, I was commenting on your claim that pipelines are the safest way to transport oil - what does that have to do with efficiency? I'd argue that trains, however more inefficient, are indeed safer because of the volume of the spills. 19 000 barrels of water and oil from the Mayflower incident - Exxon hasn't commented on how much of it is oil, and how much of it is water - which is an estimate of 798 000 gallons. 30 000 gallon train spill in Minnesota. Like Flick said - your graph doesn't mean anything if it does not account for the volume, cost, and severity of the spills. I think if all pipeline spills and all train spills were accounted for, pipeline spills would be responsible for more spilled oil. I think pipelines are more convenient than trains, but they aren't necessarily safer.
    "Cultivated leisure is the aim of man."
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Alternatives to oil
    By skeptic in forum Environmental Issues
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: November 19th, 2011, 06:21 AM
  2. Raining oil
    By truthseeker123 in forum Environmental Issues
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: June 25th, 2010, 05:58 AM
  3. Gas Pipeline Max velocity
    By mathlover in forum Physics
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: November 2nd, 2008, 08:44 PM
  4. Abiotic Oil
    By Total Science in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: October 5th, 2008, 02:59 AM
  5. Oil And The Economy
    By EV33 in forum Politics
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: January 7th, 2008, 04:18 AM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •