View Poll Results: Should we build Keysone oil pipeline?

Voters
28. You may not vote on this poll
  • yes - infrastructure is a wise investment

    15 53.57%
  • yes: but only because the oil trains are so dangerous

    2 7.14%
  • no: rely on the oil trains, Keystone has it's own problem

    4 14.29%
  • no: Keystone and oil pipelines are not needed

    7 25.00%
Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456
Results 51 to 59 of 59

Thread: Should ew build Keystone pipeline to replace crude oil trians?

  1. #51
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    23,367

    Re: Should ew build Keystone pipeline to replace crude oil trians?

    Quote Originally Posted by longview View Post
    We want to bring in raw material, and export finished product, Oil refining is one of the few manufacturing
    sectors the US still has.
    We already have refineries and expertise that can handle the heavy crude, Canada did not.
    Don't knock private enterprise profit too much, it is where all the money in this country comes from.

    The west coast pipeline, was just political posturing, I do not think the Canadians would ever
    accept a pipeline through Banff or Jasper.
    An we should take heed of that and not accept a pipeline through our sensitive aquifers either. Leave that tar in the ground for our great grandchildren, they will deal with it much more efficiently than we ever could.

  2. #52
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    23,367

    Re: Should ew build Keystone pipeline to replace crude oil trians?

    Quote Originally Posted by humbolt View Post
    There will always be accidents in anything man attempts. It almost sounds as if you're salivating over an accident that hasn't happened. Again, there are accidents that happen with pipelines, cars, trains, planes, ships, power grids, production, construction, medical care - anything humans attempt. With 2.5 million miles of underground pipe, we're doing pretty well all in all in the disaster department. I'm not looking to blame anybody for attempting to do something. I'm a little miffed with those who don't try.
    Do a little research before you claim there has not been a leak in a tar sands pipeline. There have already been plenty.

    The first Keystone tar sands pipeline, constructed less than a year ago, has sprung its twelfth leak, spilling up to 2,100 gallons of raw tar sands crude oil in Kansas on May 29th when a pipeline fitting around a pressure transmitter failed. This comes just three weeks after a broken pipe fitting on Keystone resulted in a 60’ geyser of tar sands crude, spewing 21,000 gallons in North Dakota. Surely this appalling record of spills should send a message to the State Department as it goes through the permitting process for a second tar sands pipeline – Keystone XL – by the same company that we need better pipeline safety assessments and regulations in place before building another tar sands pipeline through sensitive U.S. lands and waters. We have an agency that handles pipeline safety – the Department of Transportation’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA). They should be making the assessment of the safety of diluted bitumen pipelines a priority.
    The first Keystone tar sands pipeline spills again - providing twelve reasons not to fast-track the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline | Anthony Swift's Blog | Switchboard, from NRDC

  3. #53
    Sage


    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    SW Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    18,265

    Re: Should ew build Keystone pipeline to replace crude oil trians?

    Quote Originally Posted by iguanaman View Post
    Do a little research before you claim there has not been a leak in a tar sands pipeline. There have already been plenty.
    Maybe you should read a little more closely. I didn't, and have never claimed there were no leaks.



    The first Keystone tar sands pipeline spills again - providing twelve reasons not to fast-track the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline | Anthony Swift's Blog | Switchboard, from NRDC[/QUOTE]This is an environmental activist site. I'm all about making them as safe as possible, but I'm not interested in the associated hysteria when the worst they can claim is 23,000 gallons of leaked crude. You do realize that 23,000 gallons is less than the contents of 3 tanker trucks, don't you?

  4. #54
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    23,367

    Re: Should ew build Keystone pipeline to replace crude oil trians?

    Quote Originally Posted by humbolt View Post
    Maybe you should read a little more closely. I didn't, and have never claimed there were no leaks.



    The first Keystone tar sands pipeline spills again - providing twelve reasons not to fast-track the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline | Anthony Swift's Blog | Switchboard, from NRDCThis is an environmental activist site. I'm all about making them as safe as possible, but I'm not interested in the associated hysteria when the worst they can claim is 23,000 gallons of leaked crude. You do realize that 23,000 gallons is less than the contents of 3 tanker trucks, don't you?
    LOL That was just the LATEST leak, the worst tar sands oil leak was in 2010 over a MILLION gallons spilled into the Kalamazoo river. How many tanker trucks is that? Tar sands oil is uniquely dangerous to send through pipelines. It is too thick to flow so it must be diluted with toxic solvents and piped at higher pressures than ordinary crude. It's nasty stuff that belongs in the ground until we have better methods of extracting and using it. There is plenty of REAL crude oil to meet our needs now. If the Canadians want to dig it, let them process it and take the risks and pollution themselves.

    The largest onshore oil spill in US history -- Enbridge's ruptured Line 6B that released nearly 3 million liters of tar sands diluted bitumen into a tributary of the Kalamazoo River in Michigan -- finally has an official price tag: $1,039,000,000 USD. That's according to newly disclosed figures released by Enbridge in a Revised Application to expand another one of its pipelines, the Alberta Clipper.

    The total cost, which includes clean up and remediation, was topped off with an additional $3,699,200 fine levied by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA). According to the docket, Enbridge violated several laws involving pipeline management, procedural manuals for operations and maintenance, public awareness, accident reporting and qualifications among others.

    The spill, which went unaddressed for over 17 hours, was exacerbated by Enbridge's failed response according to the US National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). At a hearing last year the NTSB's chair Deborah Hersman likened the company to a band of Keystone Kops for their bungled response, which included twice pumping additional crude into the line -- accounting for 81 per cent of the total release -- before initiating emergency shut down. The disaster revealed numerous internal problems within Enbridge that were further described by the NTSB as "pervasive organizational failures."
    Last edited by iguanaman; 01-02-14 at 08:54 PM.

  5. #55
    Sage


    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    SW Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    18,265

    Re: Should ew build Keystone pipeline to replace crude oil trians?

    Quote Originally Posted by iguanaman View Post
    LOL That was just the LATEST leak, the worst tar sands oil leak was in 2010 over a MILLION gallons spilled into the Kalamazoo river. How many tanker trucks is that? Tar sands oil is uniquely dangerous to send through pipelines. It is too thick to flow so it must be diluted with toxic solvents and piped at higher pressures than ordinary crude. It's nasty stuff that belongs in the ground until we have better methods of extracting and using it. There is plenty of REAL crude oil to meet our needs now. If the Canadians want to dig it, let them process it and take the risks and pollution themselves.
    Maybe you should investigate the offerings of Google, and read about how many tanker accidents have actually occurred in just the past year. If the problems appear insurmountable, the line will be closed. If or until then, the hysteria is reserved for people who enjoy the products, but decry the extraction and delivery or that which they enjoy. I don't care where the oil goes - inside the country or out. It's a global market, and oil delivered anywhere affects the price here. I do share concern about the environment, but I also know that the people who work on these lines also live near the lines. What makes you think they're not concerned about the safety and impact of a spill as well? You can go on your crusade, but the rest of us will wait and judge by results. Then we'll make a decision. Until then, you're pounding on deaf ears. The price of energy is central to a vibrant economy, and while we don't want to ruin the place in the process of developing it, we rightfully should explore all possibilities. Some will work, and perhaps some will not. I particularly enjoy the notion that Canadians are somehow less important as humans than you view others to be, or that pollution just above our border will not affect us. Those damn Canadians just don't care, huh? They only live there. I'm always amazed that rabid environmentalists don't think such people care at all. They just count their money and go home to live in a sea of pollution. Right.

  6. #56
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: Should ew build Keystone pipeline to replace crude oil trians?

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    There are standards that have be met, as far as weld integrity. It's doubtful that there will be any shoddy work.
    TransCanada seems to have a problem meeting the ones in Canada. And it's highly unlikely that Canada has weaker environmental laws and requirements on pipelines than we do. The keystone should be built and it should not be built by TransCanada.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  7. #57
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: Should ew build Keystone pipeline to replace crude oil trians?

    Quote Originally Posted by humbolt View Post
    Thermodepolymerization is for organics - i.e. the plastics only.
    Thermodepolymerization will take down inorganic material. The plant in Carthage can break down inorganic stuff into smaller base items or hydrocarbons.

    Plasma induction is expensive - not at all cost effective.
    From a purely disposal method yes, but that ignores the other things plasma induction does. The electrical generation as well as building material that comes out changes the equation. You left them out.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  8. #58
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,461

    Re: Should ew build Keystone pipeline to replace crude oil trians?

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    TransCanada seems to have a problem meeting the ones in Canada. And it's highly unlikely that Canada has weaker environmental laws and requirements on pipelines than we do. The keystone should be built and it should not be built by TransCanada.
    Is TransCanada a pipeline construction company?
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  9. #59
    Sage


    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    SW Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    18,265

    Re: Should ew build Keystone pipeline to replace crude oil trians?

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    Thermodepolymerization will take down inorganic material. The plant in Carthage can break down inorganic stuff into smaller base items or hydrocarbons.
    That's new. (At least to me). I'll have to check it out. Thanks.



    From a purely disposal method yes, but that ignores the other things plasma induction does. The electrical generation as well as building material that comes out changes the equation. You left them out.
    True, but I'm not the one making the business decision. The businesses considering it as a possibility are, and they aren't sufficiently satisfied that there's any profit to be squeezed out of the investment. This could change over time, but that's where it stands now. It would be very good to be able to recycle these batteries completely and maybe even profitably.

Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •