• 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!

Keystone pipeline spill affecting nearly 10 times more land than first thought: report

JacksinPA

JacksinPA

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Dec 3, 2017
Messages
26,290
Reaction score
16,771
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Keystone pipeline spill affecting nearly 10 times more land than first thought: report | TheHill

The Keystone pipeline spill has affected nearly 10 times more land in eastern North Dakota than first thought, The Associated Press reported Monday.

North Dakota environmental scientist Bill Suess told the AP state regulators estimate the leak reached 209,100 square feet of land, compared to the earlier report of 22,500 square feet.
====================================================================
Murphy's Law: If something can go wrong, it will. The corollary to Murphy's Law: Murphy was an optimist.
 
"Yeah but we got a thousand or so temporary jobs building it"...
 
209,000 sq ft is 5 acres of land. Which has been since cleaned. Most of the oil has been recovered. No apparent leakage into the water supply.

Doesn't seem like a major problem.
 
No one should be happy about this, but it could have been far worse.
 
They gave out solemn guarantees the pipeline wouldn't leak.
 
jimbo said:
209,000 sq ft is 5 acres of land. Which has been since cleaned. Most of the oil has been recovered. No apparent leakage into the water supply.

Doesn't seem like a major problem.
Click to expand...

It will be a major problem soon. Why do we subject our land and people to this greed?
 
jimbo said:
209,000 sq ft is 5 acres of land. Which has been since cleaned. Most of the oil has been recovered. No apparent leakage into the water supply.

Doesn't seem like a major problem.
Click to expand...

This stuff gets into ground water and there is absolutely no reason to assume this will the only one or the worst. There is every reason to assume otherwise. That, combined with the little benefit we get out of it vs. the big benefit Canada is why people were generally against it. (Though plenty had other reasons on top)
 
Mr Person said:
This stuff gets into ground water and there is absolutely no reason to assume this will the only one or the worst. There is every reason to assume otherwise. That, combined with the little benefit we get out of it vs. the big benefit Canada is why people were generally against it. (Though plenty had other reasons on top)
Click to expand...

This one didn't get below 6 feet.

We don't get benefit? You're communicating on a computer powered by fossil fuels. Driving to work and a fast food joint in in a gas guzzler vehicle. Comfortable in a heated and cooled home. Flying off to exotic destinations on jet aircraft.

Or we could develop our own resources, but the envirowhackos don't like that either.
 
hermit said:
It will be a major problem soon. Why do we subject our land and people to this greed?
Click to expand...

Because you enjoy the finished product.
 
jimbo said:
This one didn't get below 6 feet.

We don't get benefit? You're communicating on a computer powered by fossil fuels. Driving to work and a fast food joint in in a gas guzzler vehicle. Comfortable in a heated and cooled home. Flying off to exotic destinations on jet aircraft.

Or we could develop our own resources, but the envirowhackos don't like that either.
Click to expand...

None of which means I can't take issue with certain parts of fossil power generation.

I'd much rather build up nuclear power now while working on improving solar and the more promising renewables/effectively endless sources. And if we invest in more fossil fuel generation, why make it a pipeline that mainly benefits Canada? Some of our refineries work on it, sure, and some people had jobs building it. Others will have jobs repairing it when it breaks, but why is the tradeoff for this particular pipeline worth it?

That's the issue.
 
hermit said:
I'm for finding healthy sustainable ways to get what we want. You don't have to destroy the land to do it.
Click to expand...

Keystone destroys far less less land than your average wind or solar facility.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom