• 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

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.

In addition to the problems already list in this thread.

Asphalt. the crude coming out of Canada is heavy (high asphalt content). Northern refineries struggle with asphalt logistics in the winter. No one paves roads in the winter up north. That leaves a northern refineries with few options: Coke the asphalt, turn it into a coal like substance (if they can afford the process unit), store it until summer (if they have the tank capacity), sell the asphalt at deep discounts and barge/truck it south or change the crude feed slate to lighter crude, which consequently would have to be piped in.

Logistics. If you take in consideration the 3-2-1 crack spread, A 500,000 barrel/day refinery would make 300K of gasoline and 200k of fuel oil approximately. A large gas tanker holds 12000 gallons of gasoline. 300000 x 42/12000 = 1050 gas and 700 fuel oil (diesel/kerosene) trucks would have to be loaded everyday without interruption. That would be one impressive loading rack and highway system.

Supply and Demand. America is already a net exporter of refined oil products. If a company took on the billions of expense to build a new refinery they would be selling there products into a saturated market. From jump street a new refinery would be discounting products or shipping into international markets. The latter options would take yet another pipeline.

A new refinery with the latest and greatest technology, could enter the market, sell cheap (a win for the customer) and stay profitable. Problem is small marginal refineries might get pushed out of business. It makes sense instead of starting from scratch to just buy an old marginal refinery with permits, logistics, etc... already in place and upgrade/expand it.
 
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.

You know where that oil originated. Right?
 
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.

How is the refined product going to be distributed? It can't stay at the Candadian border.
 
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.

The eco-nazis in Canada have made it impossible to build new refineries, hence--as you pointed out--if it was that simple, the Canadians would already be doing it.
 
It's from here



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

You don't believe that the government has a responsibility to the "general welfare" of the country?
 
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.

I'm curious on this one, and first of, your points are entirely valid. However, we have a history in the country of making sure that we learn from accidents and to the best of our ability, try to prevent them in the future. Yet, when it comes to the oil industry, we don't do that. The same exact clean up procedures used to clean up of the Exxon Valdez were used to clean up the spill in the gulf, and neither were executed very effectively. This pipeline, the Pegasus pipeline, was the subject of a fine that Exxon received for not inspecting a stretch of the pipe for 5 years. Exxon had another pipe rupture in 2011, that spilled oil into the yellowstone river, which resulted in the another fine for safety violations.

My point here, is that if the largest publicly traded oil company, keeps violating safety procedures, and keeps having issues with spills, isn't about time we say, you can't keep drilling until you don't have a plan to keep it as safe as possible?
 
I'm curious on this one, and first of, your points are entirely valid. However, we have a history in the country of making sure that we learn from accidents and to the best of our ability, try to prevent them in the future. Yet, when it comes to the oil industry, we don't do that. The same exact clean up procedures used to clean up of the Exxon Valdez were used to clean up the spill in the gulf, and neither were executed very effectively. This pipeline, the Pegasus pipeline, was the subject of a fine that Exxon received for not inspecting a stretch of the pipe for 5 years. Exxon had another pipe rupture in 2011, that spilled oil into the yellowstone river, which resulted in the another fine for safety violations.

My point here, is that if the largest publicly traded oil company, keeps violating safety procedures, and keeps having issues with spills, isn't about time we say, you can't keep drilling until you don't have a plan to keep it as safe as possible?

Doesn't you gas, food, goods cost you enough? I already don't have enough money to go to the movies.
 
Doesn't you gas, food, goods cost you enough? I already don't have enough money to go to the movies.

Not more then it will cost my children if this trend of oil spills continues. I'm less concerned about the immediate cost of goods, and more concerned about the long term damage these spills are and could be causing on the land around us. I'm not about throwing the baby out with the bath water, I'm not saying we stop drilling forever. It's a neccessary evil until a truly viable alternative energy can be integrated into the existing system. However, obviously, we aren't making the ramifications for these types of safety violations painful enough for these companies. I'm mean, the clean up protacal for the gulf, was exactly the same as in the 70's, and that still isn't changing. That's a problem for me. Especially, when companies continue to receive safety violation fines, with no changes having to be made. If it takes a temporary shut of the oil fields, to make sure they know the American people are tired of paying the price for their f***k ups, I'll get a bike, and support that decision.
 
You know where that oil originated. Right?

What does that have to do with the discussion? Our imaginary borders make no difference to the impact of oil. This is one continent. An oil spill in Arkansas will affect the environment in far reaching aspects, especially once that oil reaches the waterways.

apdst said:
The eco-nazis in Canada have made it impossible to build new refineries, hence--as you pointed out--if it was that simple, the Canadians would already be doing it.

That's a complete and outright lie and you should be ashamed. Both eastern and western Canada have petitioned the Federal government for domestic refineries, but the Federal government is too concerned about its relationship with America to do that. They would rather transport the raw crude to the U.S. or China, and let your countrymen refine it, for the sake of your jobs. This is about what the U.S. wants and it always has been. Canada extracts the dirty oil and suffers the environmental consequences, while the U.S. gets to employ its own to refine it, and then jack up the price so that oil industries can profit obscenely.

Secondly, the tar sands in Alberta are affecting everyone there. It's not a partisan issue. In the last Alberta election, Conservative constituents were asking the candidates how they intend to preserve Alberta's natural ecosystem while still maintaining the oil economy. Everyone is worried. In the beginning it was more partisan, but now that the harmful changes are so obvious, even Conservatives are beginning to wonder:

tarsands-beforeafter.jpg


You're a partisan hack and a malicious spinster.
 
What does that have to do with the discussion? Our imaginary borders make no difference to the impact of oil. This is one continent. An oil spill in Arkansas will affect the environment in far reaching aspects, especially once that oil reaches the waterways.

Oil comes out of the GROUND. If it was so detrimental tonature, we would have be screwed a million years ago, or so. Oil is organic; it breaks down; it goes away. Basically, the land isn't ruined as you would like for the more uninformed to believe.



That's a complete and outright lie and you should be ashamed. Both eastern and western Canada have petitioned the Federal government for domestic refineries, but the Federal government is too concerned about its relationship with America to do that. They would rather transport the raw crude to the U.S. or China, and let your countrymen refine it, for the sake of your jobs. This is about what the U.S. wants and it always has been. Canada extracts the dirty oil and suffers the environmental consequences, while the U.S. gets to employ its own to refine it, and then jack up the price so that oil industries can profit obscenely.

Secondly, the tar sands in Alberta are affecting everyone there. It's not a partisan issue. In the last Alberta election, Conservative constituents were asking the candidates how they intend to preserve Alberta's natural ecosystem while still maintaining the oil economy. Everyone is worried. In the beginning it was more partisan, but now that the harmful changes are so obvious, even Conservatives are beginning to wonder:

tarsands-beforeafter.jpg

And I'm sure the eco-nazis are tickled pink that the government won't approve any new refineries.

You're a partisan hack and a malicious spinster.

I'm not the one claiming that sky just fell, because some oil leaked out on the ground...where it come from, to begin with.
 
Not more then it will cost my children if this trend of oil spills continues. I'm less concerned about the immediate cost of goods, and more concerned about the long term damage these spills are and could be causing on the land around us. I'm not about throwing the baby out with the bath water, I'm not saying we stop drilling forever. It's a neccessary evil until a truly viable alternative energy can be integrated into the existing system. However, obviously, we aren't making the ramifications for these types of safety violations painful enough for these companies. I'm mean, the clean up protacal for the gulf, was exactly the same as in the 70's, and that still isn't changing. That's a problem for me. Especially, when companies continue to receive safety violation fines, with no changes having to be made. If it takes a temporary shut of the oil fields, to make sure they know the American people are tired of paying the price for their f***k ups, I'll get a bike, and support that decision.

Crushing America's economy is going to accomplish what, exactly? :rofl
 
Crushing America's economy is going to accomplish what, exactly? :rofl

Seriously? You think the oil companies would let that happen? lol If the government says, you have 6 months to get you safety s**t together, or we are revoking your permit, the oil industry would make it happen before that 6 months is up.
 
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?
That would not eliminate the need for pipelines.
 
Seriously? You think the oil companies would let that happen? lol If the government says, you have 6 months to get you safety s**t together, or we are revoking your permit, the oil industry would make it happen before that 6 months is up.

That's not what you just said.
 
That's not what you just said.

I said,

If it takes a temporary shut of the oil fields, to make sure they know the American people are tired of paying the price for their f***k ups, I'll get a bike, and support that decision.

You postulated the rest yourself. Regardless, the point stands. Without the threat of shutting down fields by the revocation of permits, the oil industry will have no substantial reason to take safety and clean up seriously. The evidence of that being the current trend of oil spills. There were 9 oil spills, simultaneously, during Hurricane Katrina. Since then, there have 13 since then. From 1990-2000, there were 5 total. Even excluding Hurricane Katrina, that's still double the number of spills, in less then 10 years. Would you not say that is concerning?
 
I'm curious on this one, and first of, your points are entirely valid. However, we have a history in the country of making sure that we learn from accidents and to the best of our ability, try to prevent them in the future. Yet, when it comes to the oil industry, we don't do that. The same exact clean up procedures used to clean up of the Exxon Valdez were used to clean up the spill in the gulf, and neither were executed very effectively. This pipeline, the Pegasus pipeline, was the subject of a fine that Exxon received for not inspecting a stretch of the pipe for 5 years. Exxon had another pipe rupture in 2011, that spilled oil into the yellowstone river, which resulted in the another fine for safety violations.

My point here, is that if the largest publicly traded oil company, keeps violating safety procedures, and keeps having issues with spills, isn't about time we say, you can't keep drilling until you don't have a plan to keep it as safe as possible?

I don't know if that would be the appropriate "punishment" but I'd have no objection to upping the penalty for each instance of corporate negligence that reflects a company's lack of new procedures to avoid the same errors twice or more. Some of the problems with oil spills are simply human error and often not the direct fault of the corporate giant but a sub-contractor hired by the corporation, but ultimately the corporation carries the blame - punish them severely if they keep making the same mistakes.

I believe in personal responsibility and actions have consequences - corporations are no different. Make the people they harmed whole, make them pay punitive damages for the inconvenience and displacement, and penalize them appropriately so they don't do it again.
 
RIP Mayflower.

You were an armpit, but you didn't deserve this. The lake was about all you had going for you. That little community won't recover.
 
I said,



You postulated the rest yourself. Regardless, the point stands. Without the threat of shutting down fields by the revocation of permits, the oil industry will have no substantial reason to take safety and clean up seriously. The evidence of that being the current trend of oil spills. There were 9 oil spills, simultaneously, during Hurricane Katrina. Since then, there have 13 since then. From 1990-2000, there were 5 total. Even excluding Hurricane Katrina, that's still double the number of spills, in less then 10 years. Would you not say that is concerning?

DOn't blame the oil companies; blame the government for not enforcing the regulations that are already on the books.

But, when you consider the millions of feet drilled; the tens of thousands of miles of pipeline; the gazillions of barrels of oil that are transported by boat, train, truck and pipeline every year, the track record of the oil and gas industry is better than just about any other industry in the country. The so called, "clean energy" industry is harder on the environment than the oil and gas industry.

One major spill in the GOM and the treehuggers want to shut everything down, forever. It's a good thing that standard isn't applied to any other industry in the country.

We know that you don't want to apply that standard to the railroads.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323296504578396850749052848.html
 
I don't know if that would be the appropriate "punishment" but I'd have no objection to upping the penalty for each instance of corporate negligence that reflects a company's lack of new procedures to avoid the same errors twice or more. Some of the problems with oil spills are simply human error and often not the direct fault of the corporate giant but a sub-contractor hired by the corporation, but ultimately the corporation carries the blame - punish them severely if they keep making the same mistakes.

I believe in personal responsibility and actions have consequences - corporations are no different. Make the people they harmed whole, make them pay punitive damages for the inconvenience and displacement, and penalize them appropriately so they don't do it again.

Does that really do the trick though? I mean, that's pretty much the model we have been using for at least the last decade, and spills keep happening. Without a proper clean up and leak prevention plan, the future damage can never be fixed by an amount of money. For instance, the wetlands in the gulf. Wetlands act as a cushion during hurricanes. They absorb the brunt of the storm, and cause the severity of the storm to decrease. Obviously, this depends on the size of the storm, but the point is the long term effects of the oil that spread into those same wetlands. How do you penalize a company for the future depletion of the wetlands, and the future danger the people of coastal towns will be in because of that depletion?

I'm not saying I disagree with you, I just think the severity of these mistakes should carry a consequence other then just a monetary value. The oil industry is the most profitable industry in the world, and the US subsidises it on top of that. Companies are paying people theses damages with tax payer dollars, lol. It just doesn't seem like that has the same kind of impact as outright threatening to revoke their permits to drill if they don't get it together.
 
RIP Mayflower.

You were an armpit, but you didn't deserve this. The lake was about all you had going for you. That little community won't recover.

That's a little doomsday'ish, don't you think??
 
DOn't blame the oil companies; blame the government for not enforcing the regulations that are already on the books.

But, when you consider the millions of feet drilled; the tens of thousands of miles of pipeline; the gazillions of barrels of oil that are transported by boat, train, truck and pipeline every year, the track record of the oil and gas industry is better than just about any other industry in the country. The so called, "clean energy" industry is harder on the environment than the oil and gas industry.

One major spill in the GOM and the treehuggers want to shut everything down, forever. It's a good thing that standard isn't applied to any other industry in the country.

We know that you don't want to apply that standard to the railroads.

Review & Outlook: A Tale of Two Oil Spills - WSJ.com

You are 100% assuming what my opinions are, regardless of what I actually said. You may be right about the 'GOM and the treehuggers', but that's not me, and that's not what I said. The powers of the regulatory bodies are extremely limited and stretched increadibly thin. It was widely reported in 2010, that at the time of the Deepwater Horizon spill, there were 55 inspectors, 90 drilling rigs and 3,500 drilling platforms that required regular inspection. You are right that things are broken within the regulatory world, the numerous scandals surrounding the MMS are evidence of that. However, it's two fold. The regulatory bodies need to be held accountable for their inaction, but the oil companies need to feel the sting of their failures as well. Paying fines just doesn't cut it anymore.

Also, it's not 1 major spill that has caused this kind of concern. It's 22 spills in less then 10 years. I will completely admit that actual amount of oil being spilled as decreased over the last 20 years, but the damage is equally severe. It's irresponsible to chalk it up to isolated incidents that no one could have seen coming. How many leaks do rigs need to have before it become predictable, and someone does something to stop it for happening continueously?
 
You are 100% assuming what my opinions are, regardless of what I actually said. You may be right about the 'GOM and the treehuggers', but that's not me, and that's not what I said. The powers of the regulatory bodies are extremely limited and stretched increadibly thin. It was widely reported in 2010, that at the time of the Deepwater Horizon spill, there were 55 inspectors, 90 drilling rigs and 3,500 drilling platforms that required regular inspection. You are right that things are broken within the regulatory world, the numerous scandals surrounding the MMS are evidence of that. However, it's two fold. The regulatory bodies need to be held accountable for their inaction, but the oil companies need to feel the sting of their failures as well. Paying fines just doesn't cut it anymore.

Also, it's not 1 major spill that has caused this kind of concern. It's 22 spills in less then 10 years. I will completely admit that actual amount of oil being spilled as decreased over the last 20 years, but the damage is equally severe. It's irresponsible to chalk it up to isolated incidents that no one could have seen coming. How many leaks do rigs need to have before it become predictable, and someone does something to stop it for happening continueously?

When an oil and gas company screws up, you're calling for their heads. When a railroad company screws up, you're hiding among the crickets. Why is that?

A train derailment in Minnesota spilled 30,000 gallons of oil and no one is screaming for railroad heads on a plate. Is it because the outrage has more to do with the hatred for oil companies, in general? Is it because railroads are the more PC industry among the treehuggers now days? Is it because railroads are unionized and unions don't exist in the oil and gas industry?
 
DOn't blame the oil companies; blame the government for not enforcing the regulations that are already on the books.

Right. Don't blame the crook, blame the police for not catching them. :lamo

What a partisan hack!
 
Right. Don't blame the crook, blame the police for not catching them. :lamo

What a partisan hack!

Well, if government regulators aren't enforcing government regulations, they're as much at fault as anyone else. It's called, "corruption".

Are you one of the folks that swears up-n-down that Bush knowingly lied about WMD's in Iraq? Because, if you are...
 
Back
Top Bottom