Republicans vote today, Democrats vote tomorrow

I'm sorry, I'm not being nice. Post deleted.

Here's my previous post on the topic. Make of it what you will.

https://www.halforums.com/threads/tar-sands-oil-blow-out-in-alberta.29599/#post-1067764
And that's great that when you spread it all out and say in comparison to what gets shipped through the pipeline there isn't a lot that gets spilled. I dare you to tell that to the people of Mayflower, Arkansas or Marshall, Michigan, though.

I stand by my point, the reward may be high, but so is the risk. I really think you'd be reconsidering the pipeline if you had to worry about how close it was to your location.


I didn't see your first post, so I thank you for being considerate and not posting something which would elevate the discussion into personal territory. I respect you have a different opinion than I do and I welcome the discussion we are having.
 
Which will be fine when regulations for poorly managed pipelines match the damage done rather than just fines.

Stienman, I'm not saying "OMG, PIPELINES KILL!" I really wish you wouldn't make my argument sound so hyperbolic. And, yes, it is emotional. That's what you think of when you consider a MAN MADE disaster, unlike your tornado example above, caused the evacuation of an entire town of 2,000 people. All those homes destroyed and families suddenly uprooted for who knows how long because of something which could have been prevented. Maybe when the oil companies are more responsible with their disasters I'll be willing to look at it a bit more like you do.

I have to admit, though, brushing off those people feels a little cold to me.
 
I really wish there was a good way to dispose of the rods and minimize the disasters.

Look, I know there is no great way to get the amount of energy the country needs to sustain the power it requires. I just think when we do make changes we should be careful to consider the impact those changes will make.
 
You kinda are. "I especially like how you imply that anyone who defends oil pipelines is inhumane."

That I never said or even implied. Just in this case you sounded cold to me. But if you feel better saying so then be my guest. I'm not interested in changing minds or hearts, just came here to present the info I found.
 
Nah. You want hyperbolic, just look at WV politics this year. Even when their own water was poisoned, the politicians wouldn't back down on the "war on coal" rhetoric. To even suggest that WV could have a future without coal was treasonous, to the point of officials deliberately sabotaging proposals from other officials.
 
And still, you folk won't address Transcanada's plans for the oil.

They haven't made a secret about how it's destined for foreign markets.
They've stated how if the pipeline is completed, the cost to the American market will increase.

This isn't some right or left wing think tank spewing numbers. It's the FRIGGING COMPANY THAT WANTS TO BUILD THE DAMN PIPELINE saying how it wouldn't benefit the american people.

Seriously?!?
 
Just out of curiosity, how do you feel about nuclear power?
Nuclear power works just fine when it's facilities are properly managed and inspected by outside 3rd parties. The TEPCO disaster in Fukashima never would have happened (or at least been better contained) had it's management actually DONE ANY OF THE THINGS IT WAS SUPPOSED TO, but instead cronyism, cultural values, and just plain old greed lead to them doing next to none of the safety inspections and maintenance required to prevent the kind of disaster Japan experienced.

That said, I'm in the same boat: I really wish we had some better means of dealing with the waste. I'm almost in favor of dumping it in space or on the moon until we have the means to deal with it, because at least there it wouldn't cause any trouble, but that's a pipe dream. We're just going to have to keep hollowing out mountains until we can properly process it.
 
"Not in my backyard" is a great line, it goes so well with "think of the children!"
In the early 1950's, the amount of dissolved oxygen in the Kalamazoo River was so low that fish simply could not live in it. Since then, it had been rehabilitated significantly. My father-in-law is one of the people who was heavily involved in the clean up of the Kalamazoo River starting in the mid-70's. He personally put actual years of effort into the rehabilitation of the river. He's not happy about the spill that (directly or indirectly) undid quite a bit of the years of work he put into that project. Yes, he gets emotional about it, and understandably so.

As far as our energy needs, our current investment in renewables (mostly wind and solar) IS doing a lot to offset this demand for more invasive fossil fuel acquisitions, but until the renewable supply surpasses a substantial portion of the demand, the economics of that demand will continue to push us into further into riskier and more environmentally unfriendly methods of acquisition/reclamation.

For that matter, a person pedaling an exercise bike can comfortably put out about 200W, so your average morning crowd of 8-12 cyclists at the gym could put out a couple of kilowatts. If you put a generator bike in everyone's home and force them to pedal it for a minimum of 2hrs every day (in shifts, and with no pay since it's your civic duty), a US city with the median population of around 25 thousand (minus a third for old/infirm/underage) could conceivably produce around 6700 kWh/day, which is enough energy to run about 200 homes (about 2% of the population) for that same day (but think of the health benefits!). Yet people still consider it more humane to spend time and equipment digging oil/coal out of the ground and flirting with the environmental damage of extracting it and burning it than to do this. We Americans are so lazy that way.

--Patrick
(lots of napkin math here, but it should at least be representative)
 
Last edited:
There are lots of companies that risk tiny amounts of pollution and displaced people which arguably don't benefit the american people.

Are you suggesting we adopt a version of capitalism where every company has to justify its existence before incorporating?

If nothing else, this pipeline will allow Canada to participate more fully in the world oil economy. This has a lot of benefits for the USA.

Here are a few informative resources about oil spills for those interested:

A panel discussion about two spills in particular, and how the oil industry is responding:
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2013-08-19/aftermath-oil-spills-michigan-and-arkansas

A comparison of the various modes of transporting oil:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesco...poison-for-crude-pipeline-rail-truck-or-boat/

Looking at all the oil spills over time, including natural oil seepage (oil springs!), and oil spills due to drilling and other activities:
http://www.api.org/environment-heal...~/media/93371edfb94c4b4d9c6bbc766f0c4a40.ashx
Canada is more than welcome to run the pipeline across their own country and build their own refineries and create the massive numbers of Canadian jobs.

Oh, wait, Transcanada tried that and Canadians said "No!"

Keystone XL brings nothing to the American table besides making some big oil folks more money and 'long-term' a relative handful of refinery jobs *which might not even be filled by Americans*.

Meanwhile we get all the risks involved. "Lovely Aquifer you have there, be a shame if something spilled in it."
 
You suggest laziness if each person in a city doesn't consecrate over 10% of their waking hours to making less than 2% of their city's electrical needs, and none of their other energy (heat, vehicle, etc) needs?
The comment "We Americans are so lazy" was sarcasm. The rest was not. The post was supposed to plant the idea that "silly people" might someday actually suggest this as a "good idea" for what to do with the expanding prison population, the unemployed, etc. I was just curious as to how much energy could be generated that way, so I decided to work it out and share my findings.

Also, using people to convert food to energy is actually amazingly efficient. It's the process of converting that energy to useful work that is inefficient.

Also, I wish people would spend more money figuring out how to eliminate our dependence on fossil fuels rather than spending money figuring out new and exciting ways of acquiring more of them.

--Patrick
 
Last edited:

Necronic

Staff member
So most refineries are (afaik) in FTZ's, why does it matter if it's a Gulf Coast FTZ or a Midwest FTZ? This is an issue I'm not entirely clear on. I always thought the purpose of KeystoneXL was to bring the stuff to Houston to be refined, I don't see how it matters after that. I was under the impression that whoever refines it owns it, it's not TransCanada's once it starts getting refined. Like I said though, this part I'm not too clear on.

Also, just to put the 3 mil barrel thing in perspective:

A standard tanker truck carries around 3k gallons. The cumulative spills from pipelines (3 million) are the equivalent of ~1k tanker trucks being spilled, which is a LOT of trucks, no doubt.

The Lac-Megantic train which crashed in Canada lost 72 cars filled with 30k gallons each, which is rougly 2.1 million gallons. It also killed 30 people.

Some other stats on the comparative safety and whatnot of trucks vs trains vs pipelines
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/ib_23.htm#.VGEibEznZTQ
(its a conservative think tank but its got well sourced data, which is all I was looking at)
------------

I must admit that there are some points here I have not fully considered, such as the ones Tiger Tsang pointed out, and I need to better understand those to better understand my stance on KeystoneXL. But at its core, pipelines seem far safer and more environmentally friendly thank trucks and trains.
 
It's not Transcanada's oil at all. They own the pipeline, not the material in the pipeline. You could ship teddy bears through it, and as long as it was being used, Transcanada's making money.
 

fade

Staff member
Converting their food (btw, this would increase their food budget a lot) to energy using people is a terrible idea.
I know this was off the cuff, but I take issue with this argument. Anyone who exercises regularly can tell you food intake and appetite tend to decrease with increased physical activities. There are a few (admittedly short-term) studies that suggest this isn't simply in the athlete's head: http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/11/how-exercise-can-help-us-eat-less/?_r=1
 
INCREDIBLY biased article for renewables: http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2011/05/05/EnergySlaves/

100W/person, sustained. But they need to sleep too. So 1/3 that.

Or you can get a barrel of oil. Gives a HECK of a lot more. For $90? Or so? And it's worth about 100 humans or so. Or more. The article is horrifically biased, but I had trouble finding the numbers on stuff, so here we are.


The fact that we can use other things than people for energy is a good thing. You just need to find the right thing (*cough*LFTR THORIUM*cough*) that is abundant, has virtually no waste, and can power as much as we want *COUGH*THORIUM*COUGH*

God, something stuck in my throat today...
 
To those (including Obama apparently) who are spreading the FUD about how the Keystone XL oil will be for export, the president of TransCanada Pipelines has something to say:
Mr. Girling added to that statement on Wednesday afternoon on a conference call with journalists. “It’s very highly unlikely that any of this crude leaves North America,” he said.
*snip*
Given that there are currently 4.5-million barrels of oil imported to the Gulf Coast every day, Mr. Girling said describing Keystone XL as an export pipeline “doesn’t make any sense.”
Say what you will about conspiracy, but anybody claiming that the oil from Keystone XL will leave North America needs to give their heads a shake. Who this will impact negatively is anywhere that wants to export (sell to) the USA who is currently shipping it via tanker.
 
Bares repeating, apparently.

And that's just some of the highlights.
Ya no shit. It's basically "We're not going to endorse a law that allows you guys are going to use your monopoly to take the price to nothing since we can't export it either. But considering you guys are buying anyway at world prices, we'd be more than happy to sell to you at or near that." To endorse such a stupid constraint would be self-defeating. Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if USA companies would buy up the oil at firesale prices, and then sell it right back internationally if such a law/regulation was put in, despite the "used in the USA" part. You'd just dilute it with other oil until the point you could sell it anywhere you wanted to.
 
Yeah, I didn't understand it either. The US is a net importer of oil. Someone would essentially have to ship oil out of the US, while others ship into the US.

Someone else could make a lot of money shipping oil from the US to the US and short circuiting the route.

But since I'm not in oil, I figured there was a reason.
The US does currently both import and export oil and oil products.

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_exp_dc_NUS-Z00_mbblpd_m.htm
http://online.wsj.com/articles/oil-shipment-cracks-decades-old-ban-1406762293
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/does-the-us-export-domestic-oi/
 
Last edited:
Top