who said there weren't already pipelines in america?

my post (directly above yours, LW), shows the keystone pipeline that already exists (in the aquifer no less).

i love how you find no problem laughing at others' posts and saying everything is fine w/ natural resource extraction (b/c you do it for a living), while others try to actually discuss it.

there are leaks along all these pipelines across the country, rather than paying for the clean-up, why not prove you can prevent the mess.

Fun fact: wind turbines (aka clean energy) kill on average 150,000 birds (migratory and protected birds and bald eagles) per year.

Thanks, didn't see all this last night. The pipeline will be constructed eventually, likely not throught the aquifer (which may be exhausted by center pivot's anyway) and in 2014 or 15 instead of 2013.

This is more about politics though than feasability or safety or even the environment. It's who gets the money. The Republicans made a play to put him on the record, Obama didn't take the bait, and kicked the can down the road so he won't have to potentially split his voting block in the fall election. We're simply back to square one politically on this.

And yet the feds charged an oil company for a dozen or so birds that died in their collection basins. Go figure.

Just think of the headlines if Goldman Sachs owned those basins.

Oh goodness, I was off by a factor of 2. 28 migratory bird deaths.
http://plainsdaily.com/entry/oil-companies-arraigned-in-federal-court-for-28-bird-deaths-in-nd/

Discussion? You're not having a discussion. You're blathering out emotional hyperbole for the sake of being partisan just like you always do. You disregard facts and evidence for akums razor arguments like the teensiest amount of oil is going to destroy an aquifer that spans tens of thousands of square miles and already has oil pipelines and natural gas pipelines running through it. You guys are making it out that this is some kind of new fangled thing, alien to America, like we don't have experience building oil pipelines and that this project is a massive albatross looming over our heads just waiting to destroy aquifers.

They are ridiculous, unfounded positions to take.

Gasoline tankers represent far more spillage, and a far greater threat to aquifers and our environment. And not one of them has destroyed an aquifer. Pipelines transport 70% of petroleum products, yet they have less spillage and leakage than all other forms of petroleum transport on an independent basis.

You're right, there are leaks along all these pipelines. But they are mostly in very small amounts, are not enough to harm aquifers, have little to no impact on the environment, and their safety is getting exponentially better as infrastructure has gotten older.

My discussion was the link. Ya know, it's factual. They talk about oil spills, their amounts, amounts over time, they rate oil spillage and leakage per 1000 miles of pipe per year, etc. I posted it for a reason. To provide a counterweight to the bullshit.

The safety studies for this pipeline WENT ON FOR YEARS!!! Like - years. They've proven they'll "prevent the mess".

@ BMAC smith. You can never fully prevent leakage from pipes, nor can you completely prevent sabotage. If you look at the leaks from our largest lines they are all almost exclusively from sabotage. The Trans-Alaska pipeline, aside from sabotage, has essentially spilled nothing since 1998 due to improvements in technology and safety.

Provided no sabotage, this pipeline would likely never leak more than single digit numbers per year. And likely wouldn't even leak a full barrel of oil.

It's paranoia and partisanship that's driving most of this crap.

LW, where in my posts have i made this a political (re: partisan) discussion?

you can't call what i spoilered "hyperbole" when there are estimates and research that support it (you've got your scientists, and i've got mine). i'm not laughing your points away, but by doing so to mine (and dkfan's) you're the one making it emotional.

and we're not just talking about the tiniest amount of oil, as a matter of fact, we're not even talking about oil, we're talking about crude tar sands extract, which is a relatively new process at this scale (no?). this is a massive pipeline (no, not the biggest in length or girth... middle school giggle) and the scale of this, combined w/ the "crude" itself is certainly something that should be produced in the safest way possible.

my argument is not against it - much like the natural gas discussion we've had in the Gasland Thread - my point of view is to do as little harm as possible, and i believe it can be done (just like you). this just doesn't seem like the best proposal (at this time).

i don't know what the best proposal would look/sound like, but i do know that if it was as great as you make it sound there wouldn't be as much outcry over it. notice i said "as much" that's recognizing the fact that some folks will complain about any project, but that's not what we have here, so don't make it out to be that way.

All of your posts and comments are reactionary. Your "MotherJones" (LOL@ by the way), is total hyperbole. It's not riding on any factual evidence. There's no science there.

My argument is hardly emotional. Laughing at your irrationality, and DK's irrationality, isn't emotionally based. It's more a blithe dismissal of the claims that will never happen.

This pipeline is pretty standard fair stuff. It may be the biggest, it may have the capacity for the highest flow rates, but it's nothing extraordinary and nothing that's breaking any new pipeline paradigm.

Tar sands may be new, but the CHEMISTRY involved isn't. They've been planning for this for DECADES, man. They're already piping tar sands crude. They know the materials science behind it, and the technology in pipelines is crazy (and awesome). And of course it should be done in the safest way. Do you honestly think that people are chomping at the bit to do something that's NOT safe and face a 50 billion dollar lawsuit like BP did?

Of course there's gonna be outcry over it. It's big oil. It's oil. It's big money. It's not "clean." It's a project destined to be a pariah.

Geez LW, did you know your posts are always seething with latent anger?

Is anyone in the Obama administration really saying, "we should move it"? Or is that just the stand taken by Nebraska property owners? The affected parties a point btw. Its rather poor form to threaten to use emminent domain for a private venture if a property owner doesn't voluntarily provide an easement. I think thats a fair position to take, and that the Federal, Nebraska and local governments should not offer their services to forcibly take these peoples lands.

However, I see folks at the whitehouse holding their signs and can't help but think THATS why the Obama administration has said no. To throw a bone to that particular constituency. Not saying maybe if you do x, y, or z we'll consider it, but no because we don't want fossil fuels even though we have no explanation how to maintain our (already declining?) standard of living without them.

Pipeline paradigm is so much fun to say!

welcome to News & Debate.

first off LW, thank you for no longer calling my side of things partisan.

where's the exaggeration in any of this?

Spoiler: show

Quote:

What is the Keystone XL? The Canadian energy company TransCanada has asked for permission to build a 1,661-mile pipeline that would travel from Hardisty, Alberta, down to oil refineries in Houston and Port Arthur, Texas. It would supplement the existing Keystone pipeline, which went into operation last summer and can carry up to 435,000 barrels of oil per day. The pipeline would carry tar sands oil, which is heavier, more carbon-intensive, and more corrosive than conventional oil. It is scheduled for completion in 2013, though it would not hit capacity until 2056.

or this?

Spoiler: show

Quote:

What's wrong with building a giant pipeline across the US? That existing Keystone line has already leaked a dozen times in just one year of operation. The Keystone XL would cross more than 70 rivers and streams, including the Missouri, Platte, Yellowstone, and Arkansas. The oil spill from another pipeline in the Yellowstone River last month didn't do much to allay those concerns. It would also cross the Ogallala Aquifer, which provides nearly one-third of the groundwater used to irrigate US crops, supports $20 billion in agriculture, and supplies drinking water to about 2 million people. A recent report from a researcher at the University of Nebraska estimated that there would be 91 significant spills from the pipeline in the next 50 years. A worst-case-scenario spill in Nebraska's sand hills above the Ogallala Aquifer could dump as much as 180,000 barrels, tainting the vast water supply in the region.

The much-higher carbon footprint of tar sands oil and its contribution to climate change are also concerns, as are the health problems reported near extraction sites.

the part i bolded cites work done at the University of Nebraska, are they the same crazies making up the whole global warming problem?

there's nothing irrational to reading a report, which sites real research, and forming an opinion.

this acknowledgement doesn't give you any pause?

if they're making close to, or more than, that lawsuit amount a year, then yes, i do think they're chomping at the bit. i more meant that a spill of tar sands crude is going to impact its spill area differently than anything we've encountered before this (just simply by the nature of it being a completely foreign substance for clean up crews, not b/c its some unfamiliar compound for refining purposes).

i'm just happy that we can agree on two things from my post.

just b/c i was curious, a barrel is at $98.46 today.

and the pipeline's capacity will be 435,000.

$98.46 x 435,000 = $42,830,100 (a day)

365 x $42,830,100 = $15,632,986,500 (a year)

so three years of operation (at current oil prices) and they'd all but be able to handle a BP lawsuit. why would anybody be "chomping at the bit" to get this started quickly?

Interesting to find this on FOX News:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/01/ ... z1k7hr9LBi

that's just partisan, emotional, hyperbole, irrational, nonsense and all those claims should be dismissed as they will never happen.

that's just partisan, emotional, hyperbole, irrational, nonsense and all those claims should be dismissed as they will never happen. - Ellis

No, Obama's decision is hyperbolic bullshit. All of the studies have done years ago. There's no need for a longer timeline to pursue more safety and environmental studies. HIS ADMINISTRATION has been at work for years on this already. All it needs is a go ahead from him. Obama is the one grandstanding here - not Republicans.

so three years of operation (at current oil prices) and they'd all but be able to handle a BP lawsuit. why would anybody be "chomping at the bit" to get this started quickly? - Ellis

No, this isn't how a midstream outfit works. And even if they did your logic would be incorrect. They'd be purchasing it at some price, and then simply reselling it downstream for another price, at some rate of profit.

Their revenue stream is almost completely independent of the price of oil. They're charging service fees between those extracting the oil and the refineries.

You also make it sound like a pipeline, once its built, just sits there and pumps oil. This isn't true. There's massive maintenance costs involved, you have to fuel and power your pumping stations, there's 24/7 observation taking place. You have to pay people, finance an office building, buy vehicles, helicopters. You can't simply look at what a barrel of oil costs and pretend that it's all going to be direct revenue to TransCanada. If it was that simple to make billions of dollars it'd already be done.

where's the exaggeration in any of this? - Ellis

It's hyperbolic. What MotherJones wants its reader to believe is that since it is more corrosive, it explicitly represents a greater threat. But this isn't the case. You just use different materials. Hydrogen Sulfide is an exceptionally dangerous gas in my business, but we're more than capable of making it nearly perfectly safe. Process units cannot have lube-oil in the cylinders - so we make a non-lube cylinder. The same holds true for a pipeline, you simply adjust your materials.

Chemical plants pipe things that are corrosive to the tune of many orders of magnitude higher than tar sands crude on a daily basis and in massive volumes. Things like: Chlorine, hydrochloric acid, sulfuric acid, and HUNDREDS of other things. If we can do this, we can pump us some "corrosive" crude without issue.

or this? - Ellis

And their worst case scenario is likely someone strapping a bomb at a vulnerable location and blowing a hole in it. It's pure hyperbole to think that it's possible for 180,000 barrels of oil. It's fine to point out occurrences, but what is MORE important is volume. They talk about volumes because we're talking about very small amounts. We're talking about dozens of leaks, over thousands of miles, spilling no more than a barrel of oil per year. That's not enough to contaminate anything.

Let's look at this another way. Do you know what is massive source of oil leaks in America? Automobiles, jet skis, semi-trucks, etc. There's more than 10X the leakage from those items than there is ALL EXTRACTION ACTIVITIES COMBINED (extraction, pipelines, truck transport, train transport, etc.) And pipelines constitute a tiny fraction of extraction leakage. How many rivers and streams do our cars pollute? In the volumes we're talking about, drips basically, we're not going to destroy the environment.

if they're making close to, or more than, that lawsuit amount a year, then yes, i do think they're chomping at the bit - Ellis

TransCanada profits a bit more than a billion a year.

i more meant that a spill of tar sands crude is going to impact its spill area differently than anything we've encountered before this (just simply by the nature of it being a completely foreign substance for clean up crews, not b/c its some unfamiliar compound for refining purposes). - Ellis

Not at all, we have plenty of history to build off of. They've been at this for decades in Canada and Venezuela, and Canada has been doing it in high volumes for a decade now. The idea that this is completely foreign substance to clean up crews is LOL funny.

even w/ all your "blithe" i'd say the process is working just fine:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-1 ... vaged.html

sounds like he's chomping at the bit to get that significant capital flowing into his already very lucrative operation.

I chuckled at Ellis's attempt at "doing the math." 3 years? No maintenance? No workers' pay? IT'S NOT EVEN BASED ON THE PRICE OF OIL.

Typical example of how dumb you are on so many of the things you post about. I'm sorry...you should be embarrassed to even post something like that. Typical liberal trying to figure how much something costs. BAAAAD OIL. BAAAAD.

um, your tone in this post is beyond child-like. (1) my point was more that the monetary figure represented in that rudimentary equation would be under the real value of the pipelines production (after all, everyone knows that costs of production are put on the consumer, bad cap & trade, bad). Therefore, it was not intended to be an exact picture of anything, other than a dismissal of the notion that a 50 billion dollar clean-up fund is holding up any company's pursuit of new income (that would far exceed 50 billon dollars) (2) nowhere in my posts am i arguing against this pipeline or the use of natural resources to meet our country's energy needs, so your "bad oil" and "typical liberal" comments only paint you as an idiot, especially considering this project has yays & nays from both sides of the aisle.