Keystone Pipeline

[ksen]

Also, don't forget that the oil tends to float on the surface of the water table. Clean water can be pumped from well below the surface while clean-up efforts are underway.

Even for a spill in the area of a shallow aquifer,
prompt clean-up would limit the ability of crude-oil contaminants to
dissolve in water.

https://keystone-xl.com/wp-content/...ne-safety-and-ogallala-aquifer-fact-sheet.pdf

 

[Axulus]

So you are all asking for a magical method to transport oil that has no risk whatsoever?

There have been some amounts of ground water contamination from various pipeline leaks throughout the country and somehow the affected areas have been able to manage. And this pipeline uses more modern construction and engineering techniques to further reduce the risk.

 

[NobleSavage]

At some point you have to look at ALL the risks and start prioritizing. The people served by that aquifer are probably more likely to get killed driving to work. A terrorist could easily hijack a school bus full of kids. As long as these people can sue the shit out of someone I'm not going to be too worried. The can move. They can use Perrier to shower and flush their toilets.

Every person served by that aquifer are not likely to get killed in a single auto accident, however, it is increasingly likely every person served by that aquifer will lose access to clean water from that aquifer from a single spill as more pipelines are routed across it. How does that figure into your risk prioritization?

Are we talking about the entire Ogallala? It's huge. I don't think oil spilled on one end will effect people on the other end. What is the exact number of people likely to lose access to clean drinking water? What are the odds? I'd like to see the actuary numbers on the insurance. How long will it take nature to fix the problem? Poison is all in the dose. How much are we talking about here? If you come up with some wackaloon numbers I'll find something from Heritage and Cato that says a spill will be healthy for people.

 

[KeepTalking]

So you are all asking for a magical method to transport oil that has no risk whatsoever?

Nope, just engaging in discussion, and hoping to learn from it. Personally, I could care less if the pipeline gets built, as noted there are already a good number of pipelines being routed over the aquifer, and I would imagine that most of those pipelines pose greater risk than Keystone XL. That does not mean that the concerns of those opposed to the pipeline are not valid, and should not be discussed.

There have been some amounts of ground water contamination from various pipeline leaks throughout the country and somehow the affected areas have been able to manage. And this pipeline uses more modern construction and engineering techniques to further reduce the risk.

And that's great, but reduced risk does not man no risk. I think it would be an epic tragedy if the Oglala Aquifer were contaminated by a spill, so maybe more thought should be put into avoiding routing over that aquifer entirely. Of course I could be wrong, so feel free to continue in your attempts to disabuse me of that notion.

 

[ksen]

So you are all asking for a magical method to transport oil that has no risk whatsoever?

Nope, just pointing out that your claim that clean water can "just be pumped from well below the surface" isn't necessarily true based on language in your previous post.

 

[KeepTalking]

Every person served by that aquifer are not likely to get killed in a single auto accident, however, it is increasingly likely every person served by that aquifer will lose access to clean water from that aquifer from a single spill as more pipelines are routed across it. How does that figure into your risk prioritization?

Are we talking about the entire Ogallala? It's huge. I don't think oil spilled on one end will effect people on the other end.

You may not think that, but what process, natural or otherwise will keep that from happening given a large enough spill?

What is the exact number of people likely to lose access to clean drinking water? What are the odds?

I don't know, but I am sure they are both > 0.

I'd like to see the actuary numbers on the insurance.

I don't know that either, but I am not sure how relevant that would be.

How long will it take nature to fix the problem?

Good question. Based on the previous information provided by Axulus, it seems the answer is significantly longer than the 4 years it took not-nature to clean up 36-45% of a previous spill that affected an aquifer.

Poison is all in the dose.

No argument there.

How much are we talking about here? If you come up with some wackaloon numbers I'll find something from Heritage and Cato that says a spill will be healthy for people.

I don't have any numbers on that, wackaloon or otherwise, but I am glad that you are prepared to meet wackaloon numbers with numbers bought and paid for by the oil industry.

 

[laughing dog]

You are employing the fallacy of sunk costs. The people served by that aquifer have every right to be concerned about the security of their water quality from this increase in risk. Especially in the age of terrorism.

At some point you have to look at ALL the risks and start prioritizing. The people served by that aquifer are probably more likely to get killed driving to work. A terrorist could easily hijack a school bus full of kids. As long as these people can sue the shit out of someone I'm not going to be too worried. The can move. They can use Perrier to shower and flush their toilets.

I take it if the US decided to dump toxic waste in safe containers next to your house, it'd be okay, because you could sue the shit out of someone if something happened. We are talking about a group of people who are being asked to risk the safety of their water supply for the benefit of others. I think the potentially affected population's wishes and concerns override your handwaving nonchalant attitude.

This is especially true since a portion of the land and land rights were not acquired via voluntary market transactions but through the use of eminent domain. This means the land was acquired at below market rates, which implies there were some sellers who do not think this pipeline is a good deal.

All the analysis about the safety presumes a single small leak. The damage from an oil spill usually exceeds by magnitudes the estimated damage by the oil industry and experts (go figure).

 

[NobleSavage]

At some point you have to look at ALL the risks and start prioritizing. The people served by that aquifer are probably more likely to get killed driving to work. A terrorist could easily hijack a school bus full of kids. As long as these people can sue the shit out of someone I'm not going to be too worried. The can move. They can use Perrier to shower and flush their toilets.

I take it if the US decided to dump toxic waste in safe containers next to your house, it'd be okay, because you could sue the shit out of someone if something happened. We are talking about a group of people who are being asked to risk the safety of their water supply for the benefit of others. I think the potentially affected population's wishes and concerns override your handwaving nonchalant attitude.

Asking for zero risk and staking out and absolute position is stupid. If I made an argument that people should not have to risk their hard earned money, paying taxes, for the benefit of others, you would take the other side.

This is especially true since a portion of the land and land rights were not acquired via voluntary market transactions but through the use of eminent domain. This means the land was acquired at below market rates, which implies there were some sellers who do not think this pipeline is a good deal.

All the analysis about the safety presumes a single small leak. The damage from an oil spill usually exceeds by magnitudes the estimated damage by the oil industry and experts (go figure).

Great, what are the estimates from a non-biased source. That IS what I was asking.

 

[NobleSavage]

How much are we talking about here? If you come up with some wackaloon numbers I'll find something from Heritage and Cato that says a spill will be healthy for people.

I don't have any numbers on that, wackaloon or otherwise, but I am glad that you are prepared to meet wackaloon numbers with numbers bought and paid for by the oil industry.

Only as a demonstration of stupidity.

 

[laughing dog]

Asking for zero risk and staking out and absolute position is stupid.

And so is that straw man.

If I made an argument that people should not have to risk their hard earned money, paying taxes, for the benefit of others, you would take the other side.

I cannot decipher the meaning of this babble. What kind of "risk" is there in paying taxes? And who thinks tax payments are not used for the benefits of others?

Great, what are the estimates from a non-biased source. That IS what I was asking.

Estimates of what? And what do you think is a unbiased source?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So you are all asking for a magical method to transport oil that has no risk whatsoever?

There have been some amounts of ground water contamination from various pipeline leaks throughout the country and somehow the affected areas have been able to manage. And this pipeline uses more modern construction and engineering techniques to further reduce the risk.

If you block all means of transporting it due to the risk they pose you end up leaving the oil in the ground. That's the real objective.

 

[NobleSavage]

I cannot decipher the meaning of this babble. What kind of "risk" is there in paying taxes? And who thinks tax payments are not used for the benefits of others?

There is a risk that my tax dollars, meant to benefit others, will fund drones to kill people. No, not a risk, it is. There is a risk the my taxes used for my retirement will not be there. I'm sure the libertarians and conservatives here can make a huge list of other things.

Estimates of what? And what do you think is a unbiased source?

RISK! What do you think we are talking about? You are worried about people losing access to clean drinking water. I'm not that picky about sources as long as it's not from batshit-carzy.org

 

[arkirk]

So you are all asking for a magical method to transport oil that has no risk whatsoever?

There have been some amounts of ground water contamination from various pipeline leaks throughout the country and somehow the affected areas have been able to manage. And this pipeline uses more modern construction and engineering techniques to further reduce the risk.

If you block all means of transporting it due to the risk they pose you end up leaving the oil in the ground. That's the real objective.

So then...you DO UNDERSTAND. Now understand that is a credible objective...in response to climate change. The fact is the pipeline is intended to move tar sands oil to foreign markets. They can't get a pipeline to their own west coast. Ever wonder why? The pipeline breaks are a terrible problem, but pipelines actually succeeding gets this stuff into the atmosphere. Current market figures mean nothing if we destroy our environment.

 

[NobleSavage]

If you block all means of transporting it due to the risk they pose you end up leaving the oil in the ground. That's the real objective.

So then...you DO UNDERSTAND. Now understand that is a credible objective...in response to climate change. The fact is the pipeline is intended to move tar sands oil to foreign markets. They can't get a pipeline to their own west coast. Ever wonder why? The pipeline breaks are a terrible problem, but pipelines actually succeeding gets this stuff into the atmosphere. Current market figures mean nothing if we destroy our environment.

So then...you DO UNDERSTAND. Now understand that we need the oil to move the solar cells from China to the US and Canada so that we can replace fossil fuels as quickly as possible without crashing the economy

 

[laughing dog]

There is a risk that my tax dollars, meant to benefit others, will fund drones to kill people. No, not a risk, it is. There is a risk the my taxes used for my retirement will not be there. I'm sure the libertarians and conservatives here can make a huge list of other things.

And that is relevant because....?

RISK! What do you think we are talking about? You are worried about people losing access to clean drinking water. I'm not that picky about sources as long as it's not from batshit-carzy.org

There is no way to estimate risk when one has no history of issues that size.

The use of eminent domain to further purely private interests suggest that this project fails the market test. Which makes the advocacy of this project by free market advocates rather strange.

 

[NobleSavage]

And that is relevant because....?

Because you asked.

RISK! What do you think we are talking about? You are worried about people losing access to clean drinking water. I'm not that picky about sources as long as it's not from batshit-carzy.org

There is no way to estimate risk when one has no history of issues that size.

The use of eminent domain to further purely private interests suggest that this project fails the market test. Which makes the advocacy of this project by free market advocates rather strange.

How else would you build something like the Keystone without eminent domain? It's not all private interests. There is definitely a public good in the economic sense.

With that said, I'm not going round and round with you for pages. I like to learn, not debate endlessly.

 

[Derec]

So then...you DO UNDERSTAND. Now understand that is a credible objective...in response to climate change. The fact is the pipeline is intended to move tar sands oil to foreign markets. They can't get a pipeline to their own west coast. Ever wonder why? The pipeline breaks are a terrible problem, but pipelines actually succeeding gets this stuff into the atmosphere. Current market figures mean nothing if we destroy our environment.

If by "foreign markets" you mean US, then what is the difference between burning Athabasca oil sands from Canada or Orinoco Belt oil sands from Venezuela?
The fact is that conventional oil supplies are getting more scarce as time goes on. However, even with technology like electric cars being adopted, we will need oil for several more decades and more and more of it will have to come from non-conventional sources like oil sands. The goal should be to extract, process and transport them as environmentally responsibly as possible.

 

[Derec]

The use of eminent domain to further purely private interests suggest that this project fails the market test. Which makes the advocacy of this project by free market advocates rather strange.

No, use of eminent domain doesn't suggest that the project fails the market test. This pipeline is over 1000 miles long and obviously has to be continuous and reasonably straight, as well as taking into account local topography. It would be virtually impossible to get a project of this nature done without some use of eminent domain.

 

[bilby]

The proposed pipeline corridor would cross the
Ogallala Aquifer for some 250 miles. To help put
this number in perspective, there are currently
15,000 miles of pipelines that already transport
more than 30 billion gallons of oil and hazardous
liquids safely across the Ogallala every year, of
which 21,000 miles cross through Nebraska itself
including almost 3,000 miles of hazardous liquid
pipelines. In addition, oil wells in Nebraska produce
over 6,000 barrels of oil right through the Ogallala
Aquifer every day.

...

Leaks from pipelines are rare and tend to be small. In addition, Keystone
XL Pipeline incorporates proven design features and construction methods,
as well as a state-of-the-art integrity management program. Overall, the
approach helps ensure Keystone XL operates safely in the area of the
Ogallala Aquifer. However, TransCanada also is prepared to respond to
limit any release from the pipeline and to clean-up if a leak were to occur
.
Upon detection of a leak, pumps would be immediately secured from
the Operations Control Center and valves would be closed to isolate the
affected section of pipe and to limit spill volumes. TransCanada personnel
would be mobilized to the spill site immediately to begin emergency
containment and begin clean-up. Additional actions would include the
notification to landowners and appropriate public agencies of potential
groundwater impacts. Even for a spill in the area of a shallow aquifer,
prompt clean-up would limit the ability of crude-oil contaminants to
dissolve in water.

https://keystone-xl.com/wp-content/...ne-safety-and-ogallala-aquifer-fact-sheet.pdf

So, what is being proposed is a 1.7% increase in the miles of pipeline across the Ogallala. There are sound safeguards in place and sound mitigation strategies. The safety of the Ogallala hasn't been compromised thus far. Why worry so much about a 1.7% increase using modern construction and engineering (read: safer)?

You are employing the fallacy of sunk costs. The people served by that aquifer have every right to be concerned about the security of their water quality from this increase in risk. Especially in the age of terrorism.

Ooooh, terrorism. No, not just terrorism, an AGE of terrorism. So scary.

People and pipelines in Nebraska are at more risk from drunks than they are from terrorists. How many terrorist attacks have their been in Nebraska during this alleged "age of terrorism"?

Seriously, using the threat of terrorism to support a position in an online debate is rapidly becoming a clear indicator that the person posting has nothing of any substance to contribute.

You know who else built pipelines? Hitler, that's who.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Fun fact of the day. Hitler never actually built a single oil pipeline. He was too worried about Jewish terrorists blowing them up.