Keystone Pipeline

[bilby]

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

DRUNK Jewish terrorists.

 

[laughing dog]

Because you asked.

You are mistaken. I did not ask for irrelevancies.

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.

There is mostly private gain. What do think is the "public gain"?

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

It is clear you do have lots to learn.

 

[laughing dog]

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.

First, there is an increase in risk to the water supply to the users of the Ogallala aquifer (which extends beyond Nebraska) from the pipeline. Second, there is a risk (probably very small), of terrorist attacks. The people of Oklahoma had never been attacked by terrorists. What terrorist attacks had NYC suffered before the Twin towers?

I noticed your intellectual belch did not address the real substance of the post 1) that the users of that aquifer have every right to be concerned about the increase in risk to the water supply, and 2) the application of the fallacy of sunk costs to the analysis.

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

I suppose that would seem appropriate if my head was up my ass.

 

[NobleSavage]

It is clear you do have lots to learn.

Yes I do. However, It's obvious that it will not come from you.

 

[laughing dog]

It is clear you do have lots to learn.

Yes I do. However, It's obvious that it will not come from you.

The first step in learning is understanding what you don't know. It is obvious you are not reached that stage yet.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

There's a simple reason they don't do their own pipeline--look at a map. Note that mountain range in the way?


Anyway, you are basically admitting to a false-flag argument here.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

There's a simple reason they don't do their own pipeline--look at a map. Note that mountain range in the way?

It's actually not difficult to put a pipeline through the mountains. They've already got paths through them for railways and roads and the whole pipeline's route has been mapped out and submitted for approval. It's political opposition that's holding it up, not anything technical.

 

[arkirk]

It is clear you do have lots to learn.

Yes I do. However, It's obvious that it will not come from you.

Don't be too sure! If you're not here to share and learn, why come?

 

[arkirk]

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.

There's a simple reason they don't do their own pipeline--look at a map. Note that mountain range in the way?


Anyway, you are basically admitting to a false-flag argument here.

There were proposed pipelines to BC and strong First Nation and civilian resistance shut them down. Either way, that oil must stay in the ground and not be pumped into our atmosphere.

 

[bilby]

There's a simple reason they don't do their own pipeline--look at a map. Note that mountain range in the way?


Anyway, you are basically admitting to a false-flag argument here.

There were proposed pipelines to BC and strong First Nation and civilian resistance shut them down. Either way, that oil must stay in the ground and not be pumped into our atmosphere.

That's true. But blocking the construction of a pipeline won't achieve that objective.

 

[NobleSavage]

Yes I do. However, It's obvious that it will not come from you.

Don't be too sure! If you're not here to share and learn, why come?

I do, and the only reason I give you shit is because I like you.

 

[none]

Anther question I have developed is pretty simple and straight forward in my opinion:
Do the oil refineries purchase or lease the raw oil they bring into their system or is the processed oil still remain under ownership of the raw oil producers?

 

[Axulus]

Anther question I have developed is pretty simple and straight forward in my opinion:
Do the oil refineries purchase or lease the raw oil they bring into their system or is the processed oil still remain under ownership of the raw oil producers?

The refined products are under control of the refineries. Who owns the oil flowing through the pipe itself I'm not sure, but ownership will have transferred to them by the time the oil is being refined.

 

[none]

thanks, I wouldn't know where to begin to figure out the oil industry.
I am not interested in their technologies but how the money flows.

 

[NobleSavage]

Anther question I have developed is pretty simple and straight forward in my opinion:
Do the oil refineries purchase or lease the raw oil they bring into their system or is the processed oil still remain under ownership of the raw oil producers?

That's a good question, I hadn't thought about. I would also assume they play the futures market to hedge wild swings in oil prices.

 

[none]

It is quite possible that the raw oil is purchased by the refineries and then sold back to the raw oil producers, but I don't know for sure.
seems like that would be a recipe for price manipulation.

 

[Axulus]

It is quite possible that the raw oil is purchased by the refineries and then sold back to the raw oil producers, but I don't know for sure.
seems like that would be a recipe for price manipulation.

What do you mean "sold back to the raw oil producers"?

Some oil producers also own refineries, such as Exxon Mobil. The refined products are sold on to the next step in the supply chain: industries that use petrochemicals, gasoline stations, airline companies, etc. They aren't sold back.

 

[none]

What I mean is company A extracts the oil and sells the product to refinery B and then refinery B refines the product and sells it back to company A and then company A distributes the product making profit off the end sale to the end user.

 

[dismal]

What I mean is company A extracts the oil and sells the product to refinery B and then refinery B refines the product and sells it back to company A and then company A distributes the product making profit off the end sale to the end user.

This could happen but it's probably not common. There are thousands of producers, tens of refiners, maybe hundreds of retailers if you count all the mom and pops. There are relatively few companies that participate through the whole chain, and those that do routinely buy and sell to others at each stage. The cases where a physical gallon of gasoline is sold by the company that produced and refined the barrel of oil to make it from would be very rare.

Not that this has much at all to do with keystone.

 

[arkirk]

What I mean is company A extracts the oil and sells the product to refinery B and then refinery B refines the product and sells it back to company A and then company A distributes the product making profit off the end sale to the end user.

This could happen but it's probably not common. There are thousands of producers, tens of refiners, maybe hundreds of retailers if you count all the mom and pops. There are relatively few companies that participate through the whole chain, and those that do routinely buy and sell to others at each stage. The cases where a physical gallon of gasoline is sold by the company that produced and refined the barrel of oil to make it from would be very rare.

Not that this has much at all to do with keystone.

This oil comes from bitumen...a solid that is scooped out of the ground, taken to a special extraction unit that uses steam and heat and chemicals to extract the liquid out of the bitumen. This oil is the dirtiest, most heavy metal laden oil and it already has the carbon footprint of extraction with it. This is heated to help it flow and loaded into a pipeline (XL). The Trans-Canada people want to get this oil to the gulf for worldwide marketing. It may or may not be processed at the Gulf terminus of the pipeline, but it is intended for further travel...in supertankers. The current price drop in oil is actually Saudi attempt to keep this type of operation from being economically competitive with them. People keep forgetting we have already passed world wide 400ppb CO2. Our atmosphere does not have the room for this crap! In terms of carbon....Saudi, Canadian, American, Chinese....climate change does not discriminate and treat any of these carbons any differently. Climate change is not ideological.