|
Nintendo Kid posted:Second spill in 4 years, out of literally thousands of pipelines. So that particular piepline needs to be replaced. This has no bearing on Keystone XL. C'mon man, toxx yourself. You are so sure about the Earth saving qualities of Keystone, throw down the gauntlet. That pipe that spilled crossed really only one major river, and its spilled twice. Keystone crosses at least 5 major waterways that are ecologically important. Nintendo Kid posted:A spill could happen. It's a ton less likely then that a truck or fully loaded trainset spills, or than oil being spilled at a transloading facility from storage to truck or rail. See. here's the thing: oil spills at loading docks is prepared for: Sealed concrete, spill containment zones, these are prepared systems. While there has been a few record train spills, most of them don't dump right into a major river. Nintendo Kid posted:Keystone isn't a problem from the start. If you don't want to use tar sands, then go ahead and invent your magic battery tech or get nuclear power plants built, or hand out free electric cars yourself. Man, if only Citizens United and a massive Oil Lobby that spent their time pushing Keystone through wasn't a thing.... Nintendo Kid posted:Which is again utterly irrelevant. Like I said, you're the guy saying "no one should buy Citroens!" because "ford pintos explode". How about you stop waving around the auto analogy? You think its great, but its really not working.
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2015 07:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 05:08 |
|
|
Notice that even the trolls can't come up with good reasons to give Keystone a free pass through the regulatory process, they can only try and pretend that risk analysis isn't a thing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2015 07:22
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Nobody cares about trains other than fishmech. http://www.autismspeaks.org/blog/2014/09/12/what-it-about-autism-and-trains
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2015 07:28
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Because his article means jack and squat about a completely different pipeline with completely different people involved. The vast majority of pipelines don't leak, and of the ones that develop leaks it rarely leads to 50,000 gallons dumped in a river. again, source? cause according to articles like these, the sensors on the vast majority of pipelines today detect only 20% of reported leaks. considering how much pipe goes through low population areas, i'd be surprised if there isn't a large number of unreported leaks on these pipelines (either noticed by the company and not reported, or unnoticed). also, you keep comparing the yellowstone leak to a fatal design flaw, but was the yellowstone pipeline fatally flawed? you haven't shown any evidence of that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2015 07:29
|
|
|
Condiv posted:again, source? cause according to articles like these, the sensors on the vast majority of pipelines today detect only 20% of reported leaks. considering how much pipe goes through low population areas, i'd be surprised if there isn't a large number of unreported leaks on these pipelines (either noticed by the company and not reported, or unnoticed). Well, you see, The Ford Pinto blah blah blah.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2015 07:34
|
|
|
Am I correct in understanding that right now, the Canadians have to dump their horrible tar-sands oil on refineries in the midwest, thus keeping prices down on refined products, and employing refinery workers, truckers, and environmental clean-up crews here, where I live? If we complete Keystone XL, then they run the oil all the way down to the gulf coast, refine it in Texas, or ship crude wherever the prices are high. Driving prices up, and idling refineries here, where I live? Why, as a redblooded American, do I want Canadians to be able to sell their oil on a global market at a premium? Rather than holding them hostage at the current end of their pipeline? If I owned some land in Nebraska along the way, or if I were getting paid very nicely to want that, then fine. But I don't own land in Nebraska, and I don't get paid to want this. So, why do I want this, again? Slo-Tek fucked around with this message at 07:56 on Jan 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2015 07:48
|
|
|
Slo-Tek posted:If I owned some land in Nebraska along the way, or if I were getting paid very nicely to want that, then fine. But I don't own land in Nebraska, and I don't get paid to want this. So, why do I want this, again? There is really only one group that 'benefits' from the pipeline.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2015 08:05
|
|
|
I would approve the Keystone pipeline as long as it is sponsored by Keystone light.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2015 08:16
|
|
|
Slo-Tek posted:Am I correct in understanding that right now, the Canadians have to dump their horrible tar-sands oil on refineries in the midwest, thus keeping prices down on refined products, and employing refinery workers, truckers, and environmental clean-up crews here, where I live? So we can defeat the
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2015 08:52
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:There is really only one group that 'benefits' from the pipeline. The folks along the pipeline path benefited greatly. Have family friends who had their property purchased at 4x market price, so I think the pipeline has done some great things for individuals along its path.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2015 08:56
|
|
|
I'm willing to bet a major aquifer on the pipeline never spilling, but I won't bet my account on it with a toxx, too risky.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2015 12:29
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I'm willing to bet a major aquifer on the pipeline never spilling, but I won't bet my account on it with a toxx, too risky. You aren't really betting the Ogallala aquifer, you're betting against a massive famine that would kill tens of thousands (almost all non-americans, though since we'll just pay to import food) and essentially destroying the midwest economy for the better part of a generation. Saying that you are just betting the aquifer doesn't really sufficiently explain the total cost of a large spill from the XL pipeline. Since there is no way the people in the federal government pushing this will want to step up and deal with 3-4 bankrupted state governments, horrific cleanup costs, and the massive lawsuits to follow I'm curious why the hell anyone thinks this is a good idea.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2015 16:31
|
|
|
Anubis posted:You aren't really betting the Ogallala aquifer, you're betting against a massive famine that would kill tens of thousands (almost all non-americans, though since we'll just pay to import food) and essentially destroy the midwest economy for the better part of a generation. Since there is no way the people in the federal government pushing this will want to step up and deal with 3-4 bankrupted state governments, horrific cleanup costs, and the massive lawsuits to follow I'm curious why the hell anyone thinks this is a good idea. I thought they already bet the farm on that via poorly regulated fracking?
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2015 16:32
|
|
|
If this is being built in the US shouldn't it be Keystone XXXXL?
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2015 17:04
|
|
|
BigPaddy posted:If this is being built in the US shouldn't it be Keystone XXXXL?
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2015 17:05
|
|
|
How about this, in exchange for approval, the CEO and every person on the board of directors agrees to personal liability for any cleanup costs of an amount up to the total compensation (including salary, stock options, bonuses, etc) they receive during operation of the pipeline. None of this Freedom Industries "oops I just poisoned half of West Virginia, but oh golly the company's bankrupt now that I moved all the money out, good luck" horseshit.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2015 17:06
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:How about this, in exchange for approval, the CEO and every person on the board of directors agrees to personal liability for any cleanup costs of an amount up to the total compensation (including salary, stock options, bonuses, etc) they receive during operation of the pipeline. Personal responsibility is not a conservative value VitalSigns.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2015 20:26
|
|
|
Slo-Tek posted:Am I correct in understanding that right now, the Canadians have to dump their horrible tar-sands oil on refineries in the midwest, thus keeping prices down on refined products, and employing refinery workers, truckers, and environmental clean-up crews here, where I live? Because Canada will ultimately be annexed by America anyway, so it's in our best interest for them to be rich, as opposed to poor like Mexico.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2015 23:05
|
|
|
BigPaddy posted:If this is being built in the US shouldn't it be Keystone XXXXL? 
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2015 23:12
|
|
|
Slo-Tek posted:Am I correct in understanding that right now, the Canadians have to dump their horrible tar-sands oil on refineries in the midwest, thus keeping prices down on refined products, and employing refinery workers, truckers, and environmental clean-up crews here, where I live? Infrastructure is pretty much at capacity right now and the oil sands are nowhere close to it's potential output. You'd have to build more pipelines and/or get more rail cars to benefit from the Keystone XL dropping out.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2015 23:36
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:C'mon man, toxx yourself. You are so sure about the Earth saving qualities of Keystone, throw down the gauntlet. That pipe that spilled crossed really only one major river, and its spilled twice. Keystone crosses at least 5 major waterways that are ecologically important. You haven't toxxed first, kid. I can't believe in one breath you claim oil companies can't be trusted to do pipelines right, then the next you claim "oh their loading docks are always 100% safe and never near anything important, and also their contracted railroads and truckers always do it right". Can't have it both ways, That has nothing to do with anything. How about you stop being an idiot who keeps doing the exact logical error the analogy's about? Trabisnikof posted:Notice that even the trolls can't come up with good reasons to give Keystone a free pass through the regulatory process, they can only try and pretend that risk analysis isn't a thing. Because nobody said that, genius. Condiv posted:again, source? cause according to articles like these, the sensors on the vast majority of pipelines today detect only 20% of reported leaks. considering how much pipe goes through low population areas, i'd be surprised if there isn't a large number of unreported leaks on these pipelines (either noticed by the company and not reported, or unnoticed). Where's your source that most pipelines are leaking buddy? Oh that's right, nowhere. Where's your source that Keystone IS? Slo-Tek posted:Am I correct in understanding that right now, the Canadians have to dump their horrible tar-sands oil on refineries in the midwest, thus keeping prices down on refined products, and employing refinery workers, truckers, and environmental clean-up crews here, where I live? No, Keystone Phase 2 and 3 connecting to Texas and Oklahoma are already in service. There are also several other pipeline systems for Canada to Texas. The XL aka Phase 4 project is a secondary leg of the system from Canada, which also picks up oil in Montana. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 02:10
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:You haven't toxxed first, kid.  Because at least the oil is spilling on their own land, say, versus a National Forest and its rivers.The keystone pipeline is for ONE reason: To make it cheaper for oil companies to produce shale oil. Its not about 'safety'. Its not about 'jobs', its about cutting out the middle man in oil production that eats into their profits: Railroads and Road Transport. Seriously, if you think this is going to be some safe, well maintained and funded program, I've got a bridge to sell you. Check out this pretty loving huge list of leaks that is JUST Natural Gas and Oil pipe leaks in JUST the 21st Century. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pipeline_accidents_in_the_United_States_in_the_21st_century. Conoco Philips is involved in at least 4 spills. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 02:23 on Jan 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 02:20
|
|
|
BigPaddy posted:If this is being built in the US shouldn't it be Keystone XXXXL? Only if it carries bacon-infused ranch dressing and has a sculpture of Honey Boo Boo at the terminal end riding it like Slim Pickens on the bomb.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 02:22
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:
So you're saying all land vaguely near an oil company is Theirs, and there's no rivers or national forests near any depots, or roads, or railroads? That's an interesting worldview. No. That was the first keystone pipeline phase and the 12 other pipelines out of Canada's Texas. XL is for an alternate route. If you think oil company run trucks and railroads are going to be cheaper, I have this lovely former canal outside of Niagara Falls to sell you. Nice list, it doesn't mean jackshit. We don't have lists of all the truck and train spills because they happen too often to count.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 02:31
|
|
|
Today, Fishmech has taught me that it is wrong to consider any possible consequences for my actions. I should have listened to my 6 year old nephew when he made the same appeal!
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 02:32
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:If you think oil company run trucks and railroads are going to be cheaper, I have this lovely former canal outside of Niagara Falls to sell you. Wow, the point went right over your head. Not surprising. Fishmech: The Oil Lobbyist
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 02:34
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Because nobody said that, genius. Its impressive your willingness to argue about a topic you don't even understand. Well, in the same way someone constantly shoving a door labeled "pull" is impressive.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 02:39
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:Today, Fishmech has taught me that it is wrong to consider any possible consequences for my actions Well sure, if you're too stupid to consider the consequences of the other options, it doesn't make sense to consider only the consequences of a single option, genius. CommieGIR posted:Wow, the point went right over your head. Not surprising. Your point is "me scared of pipes". Period. Trabisnikof posted:Its impressive your willingness to argue about a topic you don't even understand. Kindly cite where anyone in this thread said "no pipelines should be subject to any regulations".
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 02:39
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Your point is "me scared of pipes". Period. Yeah. That is why I oppose it. Ya got me. Do you actually make good faith arguments or do you just make snarky poorly thought out responses to valid concerns about the Oil Industry and the loving mess they are making of our environment? Nintendo Kid posted:Kindly cite where anyone in this thread said "no pipelines should be subject to any regulations". Republicans. Oh, you meant in this thread.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 02:41
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Kindly cite where anyone in this thread said "no pipelines should be subject to any regulations". I was unaware this was the "pipeline regulation megathread" and not the keystone xl thread. Someone should do a thread title change.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 02:47
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Yeah. That is why I oppose it. Ya got me. You haven't made a good faith argument on Keystone XL in months. Trabisnikof posted:I was unaware this was the "pipeline regulation megathread" and not the keystone xl thread. Someone should do a thread title change. Where did you see anyone in this thread saying Keystone XL in particular should have no regulations?
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 03:19
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Where did you see anyone in this thread saying Keystone XL in particular should have no regulations? quote:The Final Supplemental You can bicker with people about who said what when in this thread, meanwhile you avoid actually making an argument in favor of the bill in question.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 03:30
|
|
|
Hal_2005 posted:Your really covering your rear end trying to argue something you don't know anything about, and are too lazy to google. Which is where I step out, and you get to listen to an echo chamber. This is the second time you said you'd step out. These HENRYs are so sensitive!
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 03:32
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:So? Its Conoco Phillips? Oh, I guess that gives them a free out, obviously they'll be MUCH more careful. What Phillips pipeline? We're talking about Bridger's Poplar system, right? A small(ish) diameter intrastate transmission system subject only to state regulation? What does that have to do with a deep, large diameter international PHMSA regulated line?
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 03:35
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:What Phillips pipeline? We're talking about Bridger's Poplar system, right? A small(ish) diameter intrastate transmission system subject only to state regulation? What does that have to do with a deep, large diameter international PHMSA regulated line? quote:The Final Supplemental So yes, Keystone will be a PHMSA regulated line, if Obama gets his way.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 03:52
|
|
|
The pipeline will increase production from the tar sands. Right now, transport via truck and rail is a good thing in at least that sense, because it acts as a limiting factor on production. If you were to transport totally equivalent amounts of product through truck and rail as you would through a pipeline, then there would be a rational argument for using the pipeline. Pipelines are, per unit volume of generic oil, safer. That is not what is happening. This is not even opening up the whole can of worms regarding the differences between pipeline vs. truck/rail routes, and the environmental impact of numerous near-certain small events (truck/rail) vs. few rare large events (pipeline). I am incredibly confused that someone would continue to argue like this thing is meant to be a one-for-one replacement of a bunch of trains, but, fishmech. I think it was back in the USPol thread that I asked pro-Keystone people to actually spew out some numbers — or at least find somebody who has — on net environmental impact, but of course, that was ignored because it requires both effort and rational thought.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 03:55
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:You can bicker with people about who said what when in this thread, meanwhile you avoid actually making an argument in favor of the bill in question. So then why did you make your original post, other than your blind idiocy about anything pipeline related? You didn't even cite anything related to no regulations! hobbesmaster posted:What Phillips pipeline? We're talking about Bridger's Poplar system, right? A small(ish) diameter intrastate transmission system subject only to state regulation? What does that have to do with a deep, large diameter international PHMSA regulated line? But they're both pipes! With oil! disheveled posted:
It is literally why pipelines exist, because they are cheaper and easier to maintain for long-distance transport than trucks and trains, and even than tankers when you can afford it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 04:21
|
|
|
Looks like the poplar system is interstate even if that line in intrastate so PHMSA is inspecting their procedures. They weren't happy. At all.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 16:12
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Looks like the poplar system is interstate even if that line in intrastate so PHMSA is inspecting their procedures. They weren't happy. At all. They might get fined....$3 Million dollars! still better than labor fines
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 17:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 05:08 |
|
|
As a stakeholder in the American rail industry I strongly oppose this pipeline.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 02:50
|
|