• 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!

Hypothetical: someone sabotaged keystone pipeline

what would be the response to KXL sabotoge

  • criminal investigation

    Votes: 5 50.0%

  • terrorist manhunt

    Votes: 1 10.0%

  • other ( explain)

    Votes: 4 40.0%
  • Total voters
    10
Unitedwestand13

Unitedwestand13

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
20,738
Reaction score
6,290
Location
Sunnyvale California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
this is a hypothetical scenario.

suppose the keystone pipeline is built, or is nearing completion. What if someone or some group sabotaged the pipeline in such a way that it would make tarsands useless? like dumping liquid nitrogen to freeze the pipes.

what would be the level of outrage be in the united states and canada?
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
this is a hypothetical scenario.

suppose the keystone pipeline is built, or is nearing completion. What if someone or some group sabotaged the pipeline in such a way that it would make tarsands useless? like dumping liquid nitrogen to freeze the pipes.

what would be the level of outrage be in the united states and canada?
Click to expand...

Liberals will get the blame, reinforcing their revolutionary nature, but it wouldn't change anything because the oil would be shipped via rail, at increased cost to the environment and at greater risk to the people, until such time as the pipeline was fixed.

The better alternative for liberals is to simply forgo using oil. They should walk everywhere, not use electricity, not heat their homes. By doing this they will crater demand for oil, lowering the price of oil, and thus making oil sands products not cost competitive.

Liberals who use oil but protest against oil developments strike me as off their rockers.
 
How is that different than a U.S. administrative block of the pipeline project? The result of either is a delivery system delay, not rendering the source material useless.
 
RiverDad said:
Liberals will get the blame, reinforcing their revolutionary nature, but it wouldn't change anything because the oil would be shipped via rail, at increased cost to the environment and at greater risk to the people, until such time as the pipeline was fixed.

The better alternative for liberals is to simply forgo using oil. They should walk everywhere, not use electricity, not heat their homes. By doing this they will crater demand for oil, lowering the price of oil, and thus making oil sands products not cost competitive.

Liberals who use oil but protest against oil developments strike me as off their rockers.
Click to expand...

what if the groups intention was to permanently destroy any chance at accesscing tar sands? like freezing it with liquid nitrogen?
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
what if the groups intention was to permanently destroy any chance at accesscing tar sands? like freezing it with liquid nitrogen?
Click to expand...

Um, that section of pipeline would thaw. It would probably have suffered from structural damage from the cryogenic process (however you managed to pull that off) and so would be cut out from the pipeline and replaced with a new, structurally sound, section of pipe and then operations would commence again.

Total time out of commission = 4 hours to 3 days.
 
RiverDad said:
Um, that section of pipeline would thaw. It would probably have suffered from structural damage from the cryogenic process (however you managed to pull that off) and so would be cut out from the pipeline and replaced with a new, structurally sound, section of pipe and then operations would commence again.

Total time out of commission = 4 hours to 3 days.
Click to expand...

i am talking about liquid nitrogen inside the pipe. freezing the tar sands itself.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
i am talking about liquid nitrogen inside the pipe. freezing the tar sands itself.
Click to expand...

Whatever Liquid Nitrogen you managed to inject into the oil flowing through the pipe would be rapidly diluted, meaning that the temperature of the LN would rise rapidly. Try dropping an ice cube into a hot tub and see what happens.

If this is your plan, then no one would notice the effect. They might notice you tampering with the pipeline, but the LN would not cause any problem.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
making the tar sands useless.
Click to expand...

You seem a lot more interested in the logistics of sabotaging the pipe than you are in a discussion of the reaction to its destruction.
 
Last edited:
RiverDad said:
The better alternative for liberals is to simply forgo using oil. They should walk everywhere, not use electricity, not heat their homes. By doing this they will crater demand for oil, lowering the price of oil, and thus making oil sands products not cost competitive.

Liberals who use oil but protest against oil developments strike me as off their rockers.
Click to expand...

But aren't you aware that reusable bags, bicycles, solar panels and bamboo toothbrushes are made out of sunshine and kisses?

Only problem is that "if you got it a truck brought it" still applies. I guess that little part never gets considered by liberals does it?
 
Cardinal said:
You seem a lot more interested in the logistics of sabotaging the pipe than you are in a discussion of the reaction to its destruction.
Click to expand...

i will admit i don't support the pipeline, my views have been hardened as a response to the deepwater horizon disaster.

that being said, i regret bringing this topic up, the partisan stupidity going around the forum got me hot under the collar.

mods can this thread be taken down or sent to the basement.
 
Last edited:
Liquid nitrogen would do little long term damage

The nitrogen would dissipate and then the temperature of the oil would go back to normal

A more effective method would be to destroy the pumping stations, or even better hack the pumping stations to increase the pressure and flow rate in the pipeline. The higher pressures could cause significant damage in the pipeline itself.

Overall damage to a small portion of the pipeline is easily fixed in a short period of time. It would have to be damage to a significant portion of the pipeline to have any significant effects, and that is hard to do by small groups
 
The Eco left we make a hero out of the perp, declare a national holiday and increase gas taxes .20 a gallon to compensate environmental regulators with defined benefit retirement plans.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
i will admit i don't support the pipeline, my views have been hardened as a response to the deepwater horizon disaster.

that being said, i regret bringing this topic up, the partisan stupidity going around the forum got me hot under the collar.

mods can this thread be taken down or sent to the basement.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, in your OP you asked the question because you were interested in what kind of responses there would be.

I think the responses stand for themselves from what I saw. But a specific answer to your question depends on facts which were not given in your original poll. In any such events (and the recent missing Malaysian flight is a good example) you have to wait for the facts before making a determination.
 
This makes me wonder 'What if I was King and my toilet got backed up by liquid nitrogen? Would I freeze my royal balls off?'
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Liquid nitrogen would do little long term damage

The nitrogen would dissipate and then the temperature of the oil would go back to normal

A more effective method would be to destroy the pumping stations, or even better hack the pumping stations to increase the pressure and flow rate in the pipeline. The higher pressures could cause significant damage in the pipeline itself.

Overall damage to a small portion of the pipeline is easily fixed in a short period of time. It would have to be damage to a significant portion of the pipeline to have any significant effects, and that is hard to do by small groups
Click to expand...
Forcing higher pressure to damage pipelines or sabotaging the pumping stations would risk contamination of nearby ecosystems.
 
Please. There would be no need to sabotage the Keystone Pipleline. It'll be so shoddily built that it'll just fall apart because of poor construction.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
this is a hypothetical scenario.

suppose the keystone pipeline is built, or is nearing completion. What if someone or some group sabotaged the pipeline in such a way that it would make tarsands useless? like dumping liquid nitrogen to freeze the pipes.

what would be the level of outrage be in the united states and canada?
Click to expand...

Sorry, but too far fetched for me.

The tar sands are a GIGANTIC region...141,000 square kilometres...not one tiny hole in the ground.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athabasca_oil_sands

Plus, the pipeline would take oil from the pipeline, not the other way around. How is it remotely possible that blowing up the pipeline (which I assume will originate from just one small section of the tar sands) could ruin the entire tar sands?

I do not see how any one group could ruin the tar sands no matter what they did to it.


Now, if you are talking about some gigantic oil spill from the pipeline - fine.

But, imo, there is no remote way that a terrorist group could destroy the tar sands by doing something/anything to the Keystone pipeline.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom