• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Exxon cleans up Arkansas oil spill; Keystone plan assailed

Northern Light

The Light of Truth
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 7, 2013
Messages
8,661
Reaction score
5,307
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Exxon cleans up Arkansas oil spill; Keystone plan assailed | Reuters

Exxon spokesman Alan Jeffers said on Sunday that crews had yet to excavate the area around the pipeline breach, a needed step before the company can estimate how long repairs will take and when the line might restart.


"I can't speculate on when it will happen," Jeffers said. "Excavation is necessary as part of an investigation to determine the cause of the incident."

Exxon's Pegasus pipeline, which can carry more than 90,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude from Patoka, Illinois to Nederland, Texas, was shut after the leak was discovered late Friday afternoon in a subdivision near the town of Mayflower. The leak forced the evacuation of 22 homes.

Exxon also had no specific estimate of how much crude oil had spilled, but the company said 12,000 barrels of oil and water had been recovered - up from 4,500 barrels on Saturday. The company did not say how much of the total was oil and how much was water.

Exxon said it staged the response to handle 10,000 barrels of oil "to ensure adequate resources are in place."

Officials from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Transportation's Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) also were on site to investigate the spill.

Fifteen vacuum trucks remained on the scene for cleanup, and 33 storage tanks were deployed to temporarily store the oil.

The pipeline was carrying Canadian Wabasca Heavy crude at the time of the leak. An oil spill of more than 1,000 barrels into a Wisconsin field from an Enbridge Inc pipeline last summer kept that line shuttered for around 11 days.

I feel really sorry for the people whose properties are now ruined by spilled crude.

There is a post going around Facebook that was started by a local family which sheds more light on this:

"Folks, this is a backyard picture of the Mayflower, AR oil spill on that Exxon pipeline. The local authorities have denied the press access to these areas so few have actually seen the extent of the spill. This picture was taken by a friend's daughter who lives next door to this house. Share this widely!"

541309_10200923087946257_535986284_n.jpg

This is really disgusting. How much more ecosystem has to be permanently trashed, and how many more people's lives must be ruined, before we start seriously investing in green energy? It's now affecting people's private properties too. Fracking is just as bad.

It's dirty energy at high cost.
 
Not to mention the health hazards for these people and the fact Exxon will get money from Congress to clean it up. This is really what we want for our future generations? Toxic land, water, air?
 
Not to mention the health hazards for these people and the fact Exxon will get money from Congress to clean it up. This is really what we want for our future generations? Toxic land, water, air?

How will Exxon get money from Congress to fund the remediation work here? Explain please, in detail.
 
How will Exxon get money from Congress to fund the remediation work here? Explain please, in detail.

Congressional Democrats and the White House are toying with different ways to force BP to cover the costs of damages from the Gulf oil spill. But they face stiff opposition from industry…and it seems leading Republicans. In response to a question from TPMDC, House Minority Leader John Boehner said he believes taxpayers should help pick up the tab for the clean up.

“I think the people responsible in the oil spill—BP and the federal government—should take full responsibility for what’s happening there,” Boehner said at his weekly press conference this morning.

Boehner’s statement followed comments last Friday by US Chamber of Commerce CEO Tom Donohue who said he opposes efforts to stick BP, a member of the Chamber, with the bill. “It is generally not the practice of this country to change the laws after the game,” he said. “Everybody is going to contribute to this clean up. We are all going to have to do it. We are going to have to get the money from the government and from the companies and we will figure out a way to do that.”

So today I asked Boehner, “Do you agree with Tom Donohue of the Chamber that the government and taxpayers should pitch in to clean up the oil spill?” The shorter answer is yes.

It's from here

TPM
Boehner: Government—i.e. Taxpayers—Should Help Pay For Oil Spill


House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH)
Brian Beutler June 10, 2010, 11:19 AM 350

Just a gut feeling and a long line of historical evidence.
 
The obvious answer to this is drill baby drill and more pipelines! Get Keystone baby!
 
The truth is we are going to be tethered to oil for a good while into the future. But if oil companies cannot mitigate their damages, they should be nationalized on an individual, case-by-case basis.
 
Two points:

1. Oil is going to be extracted from the ground and transported to refiners for the rest of my lifetime and I feel pretty safe in betting at least for the lifetimes of any poster on this site. Fact of life.

2. Transporting oil by pipeline is less prone to accidents and safer than transporting oil by tanker truck, rail, or shipping it. Fact of life.

Everything people do in life is subject to accidents and human error - hundreds of people die in accident carnage on the roads and highways of North America every day - I could post pic after pic after pic of these accidents and they'd rip at your heart, but there's no move to ban cars, nor should there be.

By all means, push for improvements in safety and hold people/companies responsible when their actions harm others, but don't give me the foolish emotional reactions about ending the use of oil because of a spill and damage to the property/homes of 22 families. It's no different from those who would ban all guns from everyone because one mentally ill person uses one to kill some people.
 
Exxon cleans up Arkansas oil spill; Keystone plan assailed | Reuters



I feel really sorry for the people whose properties are now ruined by spilled crude.

There is a post going around Facebook that was started by a local family which sheds more light on this:



This is really disgusting. How much more ecosystem has to be permanently trashed, and how many more people's lives must be ruined, before we start seriously investing in green energy? It's now affecting people's private properties too. Fracking is just as bad.

It's dirty energy at high cost.

What type of green energy do you propose we replace oil with?
 
Two points:

1. Oil is going to be extracted from the ground and transported to refiners for the rest of my lifetime and I feel pretty safe in betting at least for the lifetimes of any poster on this site. Fact of life.

2. Transporting oil by pipeline is less prone to accidents and safer than transporting oil by tanker truck, rail, or shipping it. Fact of life.

Everything people do in life is subject to accidents and human error - hundreds of people die in accident carnage on the roads and highways of North America every day - I could post pic after pic after pic of these accidents and they'd rip at your heart, but there's no move to ban cars, nor should there be.

By all means, push for improvements in safety and hold people/companies responsible when their actions harm others, but don't give me the foolish emotional reactions about ending the use of oil because of a spill and damage to the property/homes of 22 families. It's no different from those who would ban all guns from everyone because one mentally ill person uses one to kill some people.

Can you explain to me the one question I have with the keystone pipeline? My question is why the hell does it have to run to texas? Can't we make the refineries in a state on the Canadian border? If there is a technical reason I would love to hear it. If it is because texas bribed the most people to get the oil there I am pretty sure we can stop it at north Dakota.
 
Can you explain to me the one question I have with the keystone pipeline? My question is why the hell does it have to run to texas? Can't we make the refineries in a state on the Canadian border? If there is a technical reason I would love to hear it. If it is because texas bribed the most people to get the oil there I am pretty sure we can stop it at north Dakota.
I can answer parts of the question, but you likely will not like the answer.
#1 Because of Environmental regulation, very few new refineries have been built in the last 30 years.
#2 The expertise to refine specialty oil, is already in Texas.
#3 The infrastructure for the refined products, are already in Texas.
#4 If it could be done easily up north, the Canadians would be doing it, and selling us refined product.
 
It's from here



Just a gut feeling and a long line of historical evidence.

Sounds like it's the law.

I guess you'll have to change the law.
 
Can you explain to me the one question I have with the keystone pipeline? My question is why the hell does it have to run to texas? Can't we make the refineries in a state on the Canadian border? If there is a technical reason I would love to hear it. If it is because texas bribed the most people to get the oil there I am pretty sure we can stop it at north Dakota.

The envirowackos won't allow anymore refineries to be built.
 
#1 Because of Environmental regulation, very few new refineries have been built in the last 30 years.
Iirc, another factor is that we haven't needed to build any more. We have had excess capacity for a while.
 
I can answer parts of the question, but you likely will not like the answer.
#1 Because of Environmental regulation, very few new refineries have been built in the last 30 years.
#2 The expertise to refine specialty oil, is already in Texas.
#3 The infrastructure for the refined products, are already in Texas.
#4 If it could be done easily up north, the Canadians would be doing it, and selling us refined product.

Yes, but none of those answers show why it cannot be done in North Dakota or Montana. We are going to sink lots of money into building a risky pipeline that can end up polluting a lot more over longer distances to get a physical item to texas. We could also sink some money into upping the ability of the northern states to be able to process the oil and bring much needed revenue to one of our weaker states. If one of the key selling points to this pipeline is the jobs it creates, then it could create jobs for expanding the oil infrastructure of the US while making the pipeline less polluting and more efficient. It has to cost more money to pump the oil the extra distance even when the pipeline is made. Think fo the jobs we could create by making oil refineries in a place like ND or Montana and all while eliminating the objectional environmental impact of the pipeline. Texas would still have it's oil industry given it is on the gulf shores and it is also pumping oil from itself.

i am just saying like most of the time it seems the government is focussing on a piss poor solution that benefits a couple of individuals. If they really wanted to get it done and eliminate risk they would put the refineries in ND or montana and make the idea much better all around since most of the major objection comes from getting the oil to texas.
 
The envirowackos won't allow anymore refineries to be built.

Then fix that problem. Instead of fighting them on a pipeline they don't want, fight them on getting oil refineries in ND or montana. i can also tell you that it would not be juist the environwackos doing this because I am quite sure texas would like the revenue from processing that oil, and there are specific companies who want that oil going to their processing plants that are already built. Both sides are fighting against new refineries. The oil industry likes limited supply as it raises prices and produces shortages for bigger markups. I agree with you the environmentalists are a problem, but they are not the only ones. I am trying to illustrate that this pipeline should be a non-issue since we should not need it to refine the oil in a northern state.

There is only one limitation my research has come up with and it is that refining requires water. I am not sure how much, but it would seem this is why many refineries are built on big rivers or seaside. You could put the new refineries by the great lakes. It allows for water access, some sea shipping, a middle of the country distribution point, the low population areas preferred for refining, and limit the environmental impact the pipeline produces. It solves every problem from producing jobs, getting the gasoline, and even minimizing the environmental impact. The only thing the idea might screw up is the profits for a particular big oil tycoon or two. This is why i don't believe it is anything but a blame game with the environmentalists because it would make a lot more sense to fight for new refineries than the pipeline. In a choice between the evil pipeline and the refineries for people who are environmentalists you could pitch the refineries much easier as an alternative that pollutes less.
 
Yes, but none of those answers show why it cannot be done in North Dakota or Montana. We are going to sink lots of money into building a risky pipeline that can end up polluting a lot more over longer distances to get a physical item to texas. We could also sink some money into upping the ability of the northern states to be able to process the oil and bring much needed revenue to one of our weaker states. If one of the key selling points to this pipeline is the jobs it creates, then it could create jobs for expanding the oil infrastructure of the US while making the pipeline less polluting and more efficient. It has to cost more money to pump the oil the extra distance even when the pipeline is made. Think fo the jobs we could create by making oil refineries in a place like ND or Montana and all while eliminating the objectional environmental impact of the pipeline. Texas would still have it's oil industry given it is on the gulf shores and it is also pumping oil from itself.

i am just saying like most of the time it seems the government is focussing on a piss poor solution that benefits a couple of individuals. If they really wanted to get it done and eliminate risk they would put the refineries in ND or montana and make the idea much better all around since most of the major objection comes from getting the oil to texas.
The pipeline is considered less risky than moving the oil by rail.
If you refined the oil in ND or Montana, how would you then transport the refined products?
If we do not buy the oil, Canada has already said they will pipe it to Vancouver, and ship it to China.
The Companies who built and own the refineries, have decided it is more profitable, to ship the oil
to existing refineries, than to build new ones.
The Government is not actually part of the solution, but rather an impediment to the solution.
 
Environmental regulation has little to do with it

Alberta would love to see new refineries built, and given that the oil is being extracted here (with the environmental costs) the regulations to build a new one would be minor. It is the economic costs of building a new refinery that has seen very few new ones being built, (just large expansions of existing ones)
 
The pipeline is considered less risky than moving the oil by rail.
If you refined the oil in ND or Montana, how would you then transport the refined products?

The same way you would get it out from texas. You could put the refineries on the great lakes, and then you would have the shipping access. It is really just taking out the huge cross country pipeline. Not to mention you would be putting the refining much closer to the ever popular northeast which consumes lots of oil. It actually makes sense from a distribution standpoint.

If we do not buy the oil, Canada has already said they will pipe it to Vancouver, and ship it to China.

Did you read because I never said anything about not getting the oil. Did you just want to say china out of the imaginary fear the word inspires in so many conservatives. Pay attention to the argument i am making, it will help you. Knee jerk pointless fearmongering doesn't help your case when no one is suggesting what you are arguing against.
The Companies who built and own the refineries, have decided it is more profitable, to ship the oil
to existing refineries, than to build new ones.

How does that work, anyway? Thinking about that logic i would have to wonder how the hell it would be more profitable for them to have more pipeline that needs to be maintained, a closer manufacturing point to the highly populated oil consuming northeast, and eliminating the expenditures on actually shipping oil thousands of miles out of the way to refine it and ship it back. I am glad they told you it would be cheaper to build a pipeline across the US, but that is a really bad excuse. I cannot even imagine that in the short run it would be cheaper to build a thousand or so miles of pipeline that needs to be maintained just to avoid the cost of new refineries more local. The only place i see it being better for conomically is texas, and perhaps it helps an individual oil company over certain others.

But please do show me the costs of new refineries as opposed to the costs of the pipeline, and if you want some extra credit the costs of shipping the finished product from the texas coast as opposed from the northeast in comparison with a multiple distribution point model where the northeast is supplied by the northeast refineries while texas would supply southern areas. Sorry, if you want to make the claim please do provide some support for it aside from the oil companies say so.

The Government is not actually part of the solution, but rather an impediment to the solution.

Yes, now you are just saying what i just did without the understanding of why you said it. Stay out of my crackers.
 
Environmental regulation has little to do with it

Alberta would love to see new refineries built, and given that the oil is being extracted here (with the environmental costs) the regulations to build a new one would be minor. It is the economic costs of building a new refinery that has seen very few new ones being built, (just large expansions of existing ones)

i hear this a lot, but what is the actual cost of a refinery to build? If it really were that costly to build a refinery why do we have any to begin with? What I do see being costly is the extra supply of the refinery lowering profit margins on gasoline and other oil products. By actually increasing conversion you increase supply which would lower costs of gasoline. That is not costly from any other position but an established low demand and the perspective of a huge profit markup.

In other words, if the texas refineries have a certain physical production cap of gasoline products we actually do not increase our supplies of gasoline and lower our costs by pumping more oil. What we do is we eliminate the possibility of China buying the oil without increasing supply and lowering gasoline costs. We are playing grabby with the oil while not decreasing our own costs for gasoline because the oil companies want more money. All the while we get to suffer the effects of the pollution because they want to avoid more gasoline production through new refineries in the north.

This is what happens when you allow collusion and price fixing, and decrease regulations on big industries capable of keeping competition out in a free market.
 
Can you explain to me the one question I have with the keystone pipeline? My question is why the hell does it have to run to texas? Can't we make the refineries in a state on the Canadian border? If there is a technical reason I would love to hear it. If it is because texas bribed the most people to get the oil there I am pretty sure we can stop it at north Dakota.

You can build a refinery anywhere - point is, you need the refinery to be in a place where the refined end product can be easily shipped to market - a refinery in North Dakota would require pipelines to the west or gulf coast or shipment by truck and/or rail to the coasts, both of which are more expensive and more prone to accident.

There are currently many refineries in Texas and the Gulf because of its easy shipping lanes to those who provide the unrefined oil and those who use the refined oil. Many here in Canada would like to see us expand the refineries we have on the east coast as well as build new ones on the west coast. It's my understanding that the building of a refinery actually takes about a decade after all the necessary building and environmental approvals have been acquired making new refineries a long term prospect that previous governments have not gotten into.

Texas is the spot that currently has the capacity that can handle the influx of oilsands product. We do have pipelines in Canada that run east/west that transfer refined oil from New Brunswick to the central and western provinces and discussions and studies are being done to reverse those pipelines to allow oilsands product to flow east to the refineries in New Brunswick and then shipment from there. Also, pipelines are in the works going west to the west coast for shipment by tanker to China and Asia for refining.

BTW, it's not just Canadian oilsands product that would be flowing with Keystone - there are northern states who will use the pipeline to send their oil production to the gulf coast for refining too.
 
It's from here



Just a gut feeling and a long line of historical evidence.

Scope and scale are quite different. The two spills aren't even comparable. Offshore spill clean up is absurdly more expensive than land clean up. The cost of this cleanup with be solely paid for by Exxon and those with valid claims will be reimbursed. Current law requires the responsible party to fully fund the remediation (clean up) and all claims up to $75 million. There is no way that claims in this spill will exceed that.
 
This is really disgusting. How much more ecosystem has to be permanently trashed, and how many more people's lives must be ruined, before we start seriously investing in green energy? It's now affecting people's private properties too. Fracking is just as bad.
Feel free to invest all you want. If you don't like oil, don't buy it.
 
Can you explain to me the one question I have with the keystone pipeline? My question is why the hell does it have to run to texas? Can't we make the refineries in a state on the Canadian border? If there is a technical reason I would love to hear it. If it is because texas bribed the most people to get the oil there I am pretty sure we can stop it at north Dakota.

Its simple infrastructure. The St. Lawrence Seaway (how ships get out of the lakes) has ship size limit. It has a 26' draft restriction as well as a 740' length restriction which pretty much eliminates the vast majority of modern tankers. Technical enough for you? ;)

Your average tanker has well over a 40' draft and usually run about 900'.
 
Its simple infrastructure. The St. Lawrence Seaway (how ships get out of the lakes) has ship size limit. It has a 26' draft restriction as well as a 740' length restriction which pretty much eliminates the vast majority of modern tankers. Technical enough for you? ;)

Your average tanker has well over a 40' draft and usually run about 900'.

Or you could just load the gasoline into tanker trucks and it could be anywhere in the US within a couple of days just like they do in texas. You really didn't think gasoline got to the middle of nebraska by ocean liner did you? Sorry, that was a little bit of a trap for a person who thought things only half way through. At least you got halfway.
 
Can you explain to me the one question I have with the keystone pipeline? My question is why the hell does it have to run to texas? Can't we make the refineries in a state on the Canadian border? If there is a technical reason I would love to hear it. If it is because texas bribed the most people to get the oil there I am pretty sure we can stop it at north Dakota.

Actually, the gasoline gets to nebraska by pipeline, not tanker trucks. The US pipeline system isn't solely crude oil. There are three pipeline categories, crude, natural gas and product (refined petroleum products). In fact, two of those product lines go to Omaha, NE. Even in Texas, refined petroleum products are not solely transported by tanker trucks. They utilize a pipeline system there too...within the state. Those fuel trucks you see driving on the streets are generally short haul transporters from a local storage facility to the gas stations.

Furthermore, do you know how much gasoline would be per gallon if we transported it solely by trucks? Talk about carbon footprint! Before you accuse someone of thinking only "halfway," perhaps you should try learning a little about the topic yourself.
 
Back
Top Bottom