Why are so-called "progressives" and "liberals" so deferential to religious nonsense by Indians?

[Derec]

What sort of idiot would argue a single oil pipeline is dangerous to our supply of drinking water when there are hundreds of oil pipelines already?

Idiots like him.

 

[DrZoidberg]

What sort of idiot would argue a single oil pipeline is dangerous to our supply of drinking water when there are hundreds of oil pipelines already?

Idiots like him.

That must be fake. "Water is life, oil is death." Dumbest shit I've ever read

 

[JonA]

The claim was made that we can use existing pipeline infrastructure to transport the oil that would otherwise go through DAPL.

Snark all you want. That claim is false.

It's not false. We can use existing pipeline infrastructure to transport that oil,

No. We cannot. You are just plain wrong about this.

... just as we use it now to handle the current oil glut.

Except that we don't. We use trains.

You are wrong about this.

And we can use existing pipeline corridors to replace aging pipelines with new, larger capacity ones. We don't have to expose more of our acreage and aquifers to certain contamination.

I get it: Expose everyone else to the risk.

You have officially made the jump from ignorant to evil.

And we don't have to put oil above water.

A false dichotomy - as anyone who's investigated the matter well knows.

- - - Updated - - -

We aren't talking about supply of oil meeting demand; we're talking about supply of pipelines meeting the demand for transporting the oil.

Right now they cannot meet that demand and the slack is being picked up by rail cars.

I'm guessing that you live nearer to railroad tracks than to an oil pipeline. Most people do.

I am also guessing that you haven't noticed gas prices lately or are not familiar with the relationship between supply and demand and price.

None of that has anything to do with the exchange you're replying to.

 

[skepticalbip]

Apparently the thinking is that we shouldn't worry about planning to satisfy demand until people are freezing in the northern states because there isn't enough heating fuel to supply everyone and people can't get to work because there is no gas for their autos.

I think if you re-read the thread you'll find that the thinking is we should worry about exposing our supply of clean drinking water to contamination, that all pipelines leak and anyone who says the DAPL won't is either an idiot or a liar, and that it's quite obvious we need to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels so it makes little sense build a new pipeline with all the attendant risks instead of utilizing and perhaps upgrading the existing system.

I think you need to re-read your post.

Here, I'll re-post it for you:

They are.

You haven't seen any lines of people waiting for their ration of fuel at the gas stations, have you? Or the heating oil distribution centers? Supply is meeting demand.

JonA responded to your post and I responded to JonA's response.

 

[bilby]

Apparently the thinking is that we shouldn't worry about planning to satisfy demand until people are freezing in the northern states because there isn't enough heating fuel to supply everyone and people can't get to work because there is no gas for their autos.

I think if you re-read the thread you'll find that the thinking is we should worry about exposing our supply of clean drinking water to contamination, that all pipelines leak and anyone who says the DAPL won't is either an idiot or a liar, and that it's quite obvious we need to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels so it makes little sense build a new pipeline with all the attendant risks instead of utilizing and perhaps upgrading the existing system.

Everything entails some level of risk, and so risk assessments must be made in relative terms to have any value.

Unless you provide details on how much net change in risk this pipeline causes, any argument that it should not be built due to 'risk' is just empty appeal to emotion.

Most precautionary principle arguments are this kind of nonsense. And these kinds of non-arguments are very popular. But they are irrational and need to die.

 

[Arctish]

I think if you re-read the thread you'll find that the thinking is we should worry about exposing our supply of clean drinking water to contamination, that all pipelines leak and anyone who says the DAPL won't is either an idiot or a liar, and that it's quite obvious we need to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels so it makes little sense build a new pipeline with all the attendant risks instead of utilizing and perhaps upgrading the existing system.

What sort of idiot would argue a single oil pipeline is dangerous to our supply of drinking water when there are hundreds of oil pipelines already?

What sort of idiot doesn't realize they're all dangerous to our supply of drinking water in places where the contaminants they spill can reach the aquifers, reservoirs, and rivers from which we draw that supply?

 

[Arctish]

It's not false. We can use existing pipeline infrastructure to transport that oil,

No. We cannot. You are just plain wrong about this.

... just as we use it now to handle the current oil glut.

Except that we don't. We use trains.

You are wrong about this.

And we can use existing pipeline corridors to replace aging pipelines with new, larger capacity ones. We don't have to expose more of our acreage and aquifers to certain contamination.

I get it: Expose everyone else to the risk.

WTF are you talking about?

I live in a place with a pretty famous pipeline running through it. The damn thing leaks. It always has, and most likely it always will. The pipeline operators have spill response equipment and abatement plans, although they don't always have the required equipment and they can be slow to respond to leaks and spills. Nevertheless, the pipeline is an important piece of infrastructure which is why it's been pretty well maintained and upgraded as needed.

Alaska also has undeveloped natural gas deposits. There are plans to build a pipeline to carry it to markets in the Upper Midwest or to the port in Valdez. I, and most Alaskans, favor the plan to run the new pipeline along the same utility corridor as the other one. The corridor is already cleared, provides good access for inspection and maintenance, has environmental protection plans in place, and the most troublesome points like where it crosses fault lines and changing river channels are largely known. It makes no sense from an environmental p.o.v. to cut a new utility corridor across the state and expose even more soil and water to contamination. It is much more sensible to route any new oil, gas, or other similar products into one corridor that can be monitored more easily and more closely.

This is not exposing everyone else to risk, it is mitigating risk for everyone.

You have officially made the jump from ignorant to evil.

You have officially made the jump from considering what people are saying to not giving a fuck about what they post, you're just going to argue with what you want them to have said so you can act all superior about it.

 

[Derec]

You asked specifically about my friends. Please reread. You are arguing an entirely different point. You asked me about my friends and I answered.​

Yes, and I have shown why these supposed reasons do not hold water.

So you have no source, but just made it up.

No, I did not make it up even if I do not have a neat source laying it all out. The conclusion is the result of me following the DAPL issue since this Summer.

If the oil gets into the groundwater it has a good chance of contaminating it. Radical environmentalist alarmism, I know.

Yes, there is always some risk. But what is the alternative? Whether you move it by pipeline, rail or truck, there is always a risk it will spill. And whatever route you choose you will cross numerous rivers, creeks, and aquifers. That is unavoidable. Whether you move the oil through North Dakotan wilderness or through suburban Bismarck (as the #nodapl activists would have it) you still have to cross the Missouri and numerous other waterways to boot and actually the ridiculous Bismarck route poses more risk because it is longer.
To avoid any risk you would have to follow the radical activists and "keep it in the ground", which is an untenable position.

So you didn't want to hear about them unless they conform to your preconceived stereotype.

It's not a stereotype. I showed you why the rerouting arguments do not hold water.

They are not participating in the lawsuit. Your point is moot.

Glad to hear it. Btw, are they planning to stay next week?

You should actually reread what you have responded to:

And you should reread parts of my posts you have not responded to. For example, in my last post I went in some detail over why a reroute is not a valid objection, including posting a map.

Derec: Don't they realize Indians arbitrarily declare areas as "sacred" just to confuse and bamboozle the hated palefaces and prevent development they don't like?

That is undoubtedly true. The "it's sacred ground" canard gets employed way to frequently and predictably to be believable - all sorts of pipelines happen to be on sacred ground, all sorts of mines likewise. Even two telescope projects were/are being opposed with the 'sacred ground' argument. It may be that the Thirty Meter Telescope will have to be built on Canary Islands or somewhere else if the Hawaiians continue to obstruct based on religious superstitions.

Derec: But apparently they are incapable of identifying the major load of bullshit fed to them by the Indians and other anti-pipeline, anti-oil activists. Perhaps they should have taken a minor in agronomy. Btw, if they are "practicing, successful lawyers", who is minding their practices while they are up in ND playing cowboys and Indians?

I stand behind that. There is a lot of bullshit being spread by the #nodapl crowd about all sorts of facets of this issue. And many of the outsiders camping at Standing Rock have left their jobs - how can they afford it?

Derec responding to his own post: Oh, since they are lawyers they must be there to ambulance chase, trolling for new custom! I just hope ND local governments and courts are not going to give these protesters any money. Instead, protesters should be sued for cost of law enforcement and of any delays to pipeline construction.

Personal injury lawyers must be salivating at Sophia Wilanski et al.

NS: They are taking real action on what they believe is right.
Derec: That is not enough. Why do they believe that is right? How did they come to that conclusion? Because the #nodapl position makes absolutely no sense.
NS: Why don't you reread my posts. I have already responded.

Because all you have done is repeated some of platitudes I have heard a thousand times since the Summer.

My friends are not the same people who you are characterizing.

Perhaps. But you have not given me any reason to think otherwise.

Should have fallen weeks ago.

Is that so?

Apparently you've never lived and camped in a cold environment. I've slept comfortable at -30°F without a heater.

I have lived in cold places, including an Alpine village in Austria for a few months. But you are half right, I am not much of a camper and would never camp in cold weather. Cold weather is for staying indoors most of the time and if you have to go out for an extending time, it's to have a place to come back to warm yourself by the fire, sipping hot cocoa or mulled wine. Not sleeping in a sub-zero sleeping bag and waking up to a tent in single digits (°F that, is, not °C) and having nowhere to warm yourself up without wasting a lot of fuel.
And these dinky tents can't do much to contain heat. It's pure physics. The heat flux (heat flow rate per unit area) is proportional to the temperature gradient, which is in turn proportional to ΔT and inversely proportional to the thickness of the barrier.
We may have very different ideas what "comfortable" means though. But so will the "Burning Rock Festival" attendees from places like California once the deep freeze hits next week. I think there will be hypothermia cases. There may even be deaths.

Also, they are hauling firewood all the way from Oregon. How much oil is that burning?
This article is typical Guardian, biased against the pipeline, but I post it just for the following.

Large supplies of firewood are not easy to come by on the Great Plains – especially enough to keep a camp of several thousand people warm. Where I live, in the wooded mountains of north-east Oregon, firewood is abundant. So the first thing I did was start reaching out to people for firewood donations.
The response was overwhelming. Within 24 hours, we had reached our goal and acquired two more full-sized pickups and another trailer to accompany us. People also gave winter clothes, bulk food, horse feed and tack for the Sioux youth riders who have been active on the front lines of the movement since day one.
Jack Walker, from Wallowa County, Oregon, was one of the people who donated. In the picture above, he is seen cutting firewood to take to Standing Rock.

'We opened eyes': at Standing Rock, my fellow Native Americans make history
What a way to protest oil! Driving firewood thousands of miles! The mind boggles!
And wood is actually a rather dirty fuel.
And in general, these thousands of protesters are probably causing much more pollution to the local environment than the pipeline ever would. The locals are even concerned about them burying human waste in a flood plain.

Standing Rock Sioux Chairman David Archambault II, who is leading the protest, raised concerns about sanitation in a Nov. 23 interview with Vice, saying activists are "digging pits out there for their human waste."
"That's a flood zone," said Mr. Archambault, referring to camps on federal land along the Cannonball River. "So when the floodwaters come up, that waste is going to be contaminating the water. We're no different than the oil company, if we're fighting for water. What's going to happen when people leave? Who has to clean it up? Who has to refurbish it? It's going to be us, the people who live here."
As many as 3,000 people have moved in and out of the southern North Dakota protest camps since Aug. 10. Some protesters belong to the Standing Rock and other tribes, but many are students, environmental activists and agitators with criminal records who have ignored Mr. Archambault's repeated calls for peaceful demonstrations.

Complaints grow over whites turning Dakota Access protest into hippie festival
"Bury my turd at Standing Rock" is apparently the new "Bury my heart at Wounded Knee" ...

The local folks will know what they are doing.

The "local folks" live in houses, not dinky tents. Houses with actual walls, insulation and furnaces.

 

[laughing dog]

Everything entails some level of risk, and so risk assessments must be made in relative terms to have any value.

Unless you provide details on how much net change in risk this pipeline causes, any argument that it should not be built due to 'risk' is just empty appeal to emotion.

Not quite. Since the effects of poisoning the water supply are highly detrimental, the risks should be assessed before exposing the water supply to such risks - which they have not. Moreover, most of the proponents of this pipeline bear no risk, since it is not their water supply which may be endangered.

Finally, arguments that there is "no risk" without any details are also appeals to emotion.

Most precautionary principle arguments are this kind of nonsense. And these kinds of non-arguments are very popular. But they are irrational and need to die.

I agree that irrational arguments need to die. But I do not agree that "most precautionary principle arguments" are any kind of nonsense. In fact, the use of the undefined "Most" without any details makes your argument an empty appeal to emotion.

 

[Derec]

Sorry Derec the alt prefix is restricted to the right since they named it themselves.

If she is falsely calling me alt-right, I can call her alt-left.

The Alt-Reich has no business trying to smear leftists with their alt-right blather and lack of morality.

It is Toni who is smearing me.

The protesters aligning themselves with the tribes who are doing this for recognition of their plight are doing it in support of local Indian claims.

And in kneejerk fashion too. Whatever Indians claim, must be true, no matter what. If an evangelical or Catholic church opposed an abortion clinic with claims of "sacredness of life" these same people would pay it no heed. But if it is Indian spirituality, then all of a sudden ...

You may pooh, pooh the sacredness of tribal lands but, I'm sure, you'll defend to the death the right of Trump to build a tower over a black graveyard or any, but evangelical, graveyard.

Bullshit. First of all, there is no evidence there is any "graveyard" in the path of the pipeline. Second, the second sentence is full of ridiculous aspersions that are typical of your "debating" style. Accuse your opponent of cartoonish racism and avoid dealing with any issues in a reasoned way.

Sense to a for-profit protester who never acknowledges motivation for profit is fraudulent. After all someone' money is always more important than another's rights.

Rights are very important. However, Indians do not (nor does anybody else) have the right to veto any development going anywhere close to their lands. And protesters do not have the right to trespass, chain themselves to construction equipment or to damage the same. They also have to right to throw objects at police or to shoot at them like Red Fawn Fallis did. And they certainly have no right to call themselves "peaceful and prayerful" after all that.

 

[Derec]

Well, no, you have not. You've shown yourself to be entirely condescending, albeit with zero justification in your judgement

On the contrary. I have laid out my case in great detail. It is folks like you, Elixir and fromderinside who, instead of responding to my actual arguments, simply cast accusations and insults.

of issues you have not even bothered to educate yourself about.

I have educated myself very extensively on this issue.

Instead, you suck on the alt-right teet and expel their bullshit without even taking the trouble to digest it.

And more baseless accusations instead of responding to my actual arguments.

And yes, sometimes I reply with a level of snark. But that is always mixed in with a great deal of reasoned argumentation, for example refuting the "let's reroute it through Bismarck" argument in great detail, using facts, figures and even a map.

You and some others only have personal attacks though. Newest seem to be to call people you disagree with "alt-right".

- - - Updated - - -

Did Derec claim to win the popular vote too?

And yet another good example of thought free response that passes for argument among the alt-left ...

 

[bilby]

Not quite. Since the effects of poisoning the water supply are highly detrimental, the risks should be assessed before exposing the water supply to such risks - which they have not.

Risk is cost multiplied by probability. The high cost of an adverse event doesn't change anything, as it is already part of the definition of risk.

Moreover, most of the proponents of this pipeline bear no risk, since it is not their water supply which may be endangered.

That's true of pretty much all risks in major projects.

Finally, arguments that there is "no risk" without any details are also appeals to emotion.

Then it's a good thing nobody here has made any such arguments.

Most precautionary principle arguments are this kind of nonsense. And these kinds of non-arguments are very popular. But they are irrational and need to die.

I agree that irrational arguments need to die. But I do not agree that "most precautionary principle arguments" are any kind of nonsense. In fact, the use of the undefined "Most" without any details makes your argument an empty appeal to emotion.

OK, then let's say 'all' and be done with it.

I assume that there might be some edge cases; But I have no evidence of them, so lets pretend a degree of certainty we don't have, just to satisfy your unreason.

The precautionary principle in its raw form states that nothing should be done if there is a risk that it will cause harm.

As risk is never zero for any action or inaction, this principle is well-meaning nonsense.

This particular pipeline is being opposed on the basis that it poses a risk to the water supply for communities downstream of the Missouri river crossing. That is only half of an argument; and I await the rest of it before I throw any support behind the protests.

Do you have the rest? An assessment showing that the risk of the pipeline outweighs the risk of the likely alternatives? Or is the argument considered complete because it is assumed that if the pipeline is not built, the oil companies will simply give up and leave the oil in the ground? If so, then it is clearly a very dumb argument indeed - and yet I have yet to see any evidence that the other, more likely, outcomes of NOT building the pipeline have been assessed for risk and shown to be less risky than building it.

Perhaps the problem is that the people protesting don't care about risks that fall on other people?

 

[Derec]

There is a sound moral argument being made in favor of utilizing existing pipelines rather than building new ones.

If using existing infrastructure were feasible they would use it already, instead of using trains. Nobody spends $3.8B just for shits and giggles.

The advantages are two-fold. First, there is very little in the way of added environmental risks. The only new risks involve short runs of new pipeline between the new oil fields and the nearest appropriate pipeline. Second, the chances of spills, leaks, and catastrophic failures are greatly reduced when the infrastructure is properly maintained, as it must be in order to meet the terms of permits to transport oil from a newly developed field. There's nothing immoral about making sure the pipeline operators adhere to the terms of their original permits or to additional terms designed to protect soil, air, water, and ecosystems.

Well that is not true. Old pipes are at greater risk of rupture than new ones. Metals do get fatigued over time and use.
What can be used are existing routes if any exist in the right direction. And that is what is happening with DAPL anyway.
That pipeline Obama blocked is routed through “well trodden land”

There have been three pipeline explosions and untold leaks and spills in the 4 months since the pipeline protests at Standing Rock began in earnest, including the explosion in Platte County today. There have been thousands of spills and pipeline failures in the past 6 years. IMO it's both immoral and stupid to accept this kind of shoddy operation of our nation's infrastructure or to force the taxpayers to foot the bill for clean-up. It's beyond immoral and stupid to put a major source of clean drinking water at additional risk when what's needed is proper maintenance and upgrading the existing system.

If there are any improperly maintained pipelines then the operators need to be fined and charged with cleaning up the mess. Corporations should take responsibility for their actions.
However, that is hardly a reason to oppose new pipeline construction in general.

 

[Derec]

Typical alt-reality BS.
"what’s notable about the Northern Border pipeline is that it parallels the site where the Dakota Access Pipeline will cross the Missouri River at Lake Oahe, precisely the same spot where the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe is now attempting to “protect the water.”"

"Parallels" is not "the existing route" - that is a flat out lie.

What do you think it means? The two pipelines run very closely to each other in the Standing Rock area - that's a fact. This supposedly "sacred ground" was disturbed already for the Northern Border Pipeline.

But not the point at all. I suggest the following equivalence test -
* Derec and I will each be required to drink 12 oz of water.
* The 12 oz that I drink will have been exposed to a liter natural gas, such as is in the Northern Border Pipeline, bubbled through it.
* The 12 oz that Derec drinks will have had 1 liter of the crude oil that the DAPL is designed to carry bubbled up through it.
I think the results will not only expose posts such as Derec's as the weasel-worded right wing nonsense that it is, but will have the added benefit of shutting him up for a while - maybe even permanently.

My point was to refute the "this pipeline will disturb sacred ground" nonsense propagated by #nodapl activists for months.

Nobody is claiming that drinking water contaminated by oil is healthy. That is not the point. If you think any danger of water contamination through oil is unacceptable (and btw, oil has quite small solubility in water, most of it can be skimmed right off the top) then forget fighting this pipeline, you must fight to ban any and all oil transport and use. Let's just junk 250 million cars, millions of planes, 18 wheelers etc. in US alone. Because apparently, saying that it's not good to drink water mixed with crude oil is somehow considered an argument.

- - - Updated - - -

But you know what they say about fools and their money ...

That they spend it on prostitutes?

No, that would be the wise man.
But your alt-left obsessions that are off topic here have been duly noted.

 

[Arctish]

I think if you re-read the thread you'll find that the thinking is we should worry about exposing our supply of clean drinking water to contamination, that all pipelines leak and anyone who says the DAPL won't is either an idiot or a liar, and that it's quite obvious we need to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels so it makes little sense build a new pipeline with all the attendant risks instead of utilizing and perhaps upgrading the existing system.

Everything entails some level of risk, and so risk assessments must be made in relative terms to have any value.

Unless you provide details on how much net change in risk this pipeline causes, any argument that it should not be built due to 'risk' is just empty appeal to emotion.

I would gladly provide links to detailed analysis of the environmental risks associated with the DAPL but there's a problem. As the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of the Interior, and the Standing Rock Sioux tribe have all pointed out, the one the Army Corps of Engineers did is inadequate.

The 1,134-mile pipeline would carry approximately 500,000 barrels of crude per day from North Dakota to Illinois along a route that did not originally pass near the Standing Rock reservation, the documents show. After the company rerouted the pipeline to cross the Missouri River just a half-mile upstream of the reservation, the tribe complained that the Army Corps did not consider threats to its water supply and cultural heritage.

The EPA, the Department of the Interior and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation echoed those concerns in public comments on the Army Corps' draft environmental assessment. Citing risks to water supplies, inadequate emergency preparedness, potential impacts to the Standing Rock reservation and insufficient environmental justice analysis, the agencies urged the Army Corps to issue a revised draft of their environmental assessment....

...The EPA shared its concerns and recommended that the Army Corps undertake a new draft environmental assessment and release it for public comment. In that process, the EPA asked the Army Corps to consider "other available routes or crossing locations that would have reduced potential to water resources, especially drinking water supplies," and to carry out a "more thorough" analysis of environmental justice concerns. The other agencies also asked for further assessments and consultation with the tribes.

The Army Corps instead published its final environmental assessment four months later, which constituted final approval of the project. In it, the Corps acknowledged the agencies' comments, but said "the anticipated environmental, economic, cultural, and social effects" of the project are "not injurious to the public interest."...

...In its public comments, the Department of the Interior, the government agency responsible for the administration and management of Native American lands, called for the Army Corps to conduct an Environmental Impact Statement, a more comprehensive analysis of the potential impact of the proposed pipeline.

"We believe the Corps did not adequately justify or otherwise support its conclusion that there would be no significant impacts upon the surrounding environment and community," Lawrence Roberts, acting assistant secretary of Indian affairs at the Department of the Interior, wrote in a letter to the Army Corps in March.

<link>

Philip S. Strobel, the director of the EPA's National Environmental Policy Act compliance and review program told the Army Corps on March 11 that he's concerned about the pipeline’s proximity to the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation and its impacts on drinking water supplies along the Missouri River. He urged the Army Corps to revise its draft environmental assessment.

“Based on our improved understanding of the project setting, we also recommend addressing additional concerns regarding environmental justice emergency response actions to spills/leaks,” Strobel said. “Based on the importance of these concerns and the new information that would supplement the December 2015 Draft EA, we recommend the USACE prepare a revised Draft EA and provide a second public comment period.”

Lawrence S. Roberts, acting assistant secretary of Indian Affairs at the DOI, on March 29 urged the Army Corps to prepare an environmental impact statement to look into the impact of the pipeline on the reservation. Roberts said he agreed with the EPA’s request.

“We believe that the Corps did not adequately explain why it was not analyzing impacts and disclosing consequences of spills along the length of the pipeline outside of those areas for which it is making a decision,” the DOI letter states. “Additionally, we believe the Corps did not adequately justify or otherwise support its conclusion that there would be no significant impacts upon the surrounding environment and community. The Corps' conclusion was not supported by analysis or data and, where potential adverse impacts were acknowledged, no level of intensity was assigned.”
<link>

It appears that the desire to fast track the application has resulted in analysis being shortchanged. The project has raise concerns at the EPA and DOI, but with a Trump Administration about to take over it's doubtful the Corps will actually address them. Not unless Congress acts.

Most precautionary principle arguments are this kind of nonsense. And these kinds of non-arguments are very popular. But they are irrational and need to die.

I disagree. Precautionary arguments can be either rational or irrational. The rational ones are based on logic and observable truths, like the truth that all pipelines leak.

It hasn't even been 2 years since a pipeline rupture contaminated the Yellowstone River and rendered a town's water supply undrinkable. Is it irrational to point to that as an example of what can happen when the DAPL leaks, as all pipelines do? I don't think so.


“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” - George Santayana

 

[Derec]

I propose screwing Energy Transfer Partners.

You should start with the CEO, if you swing that way.

They have pursued illegal means to illegal ends and should have to deal with the consequences.

Illegal according to whom?

 

[Derec]

Hey! Why don't you stop using all petroleum based products! That'd screw the bastards.

"What do I need pipelines for? My gasoline comes from my local gas station" ...

- - - Updated - - -

If existing pipelines could meet the demand, they'd already be meeting it.

They are.

You haven't seen any lines of people waiting for their ration of fuel at the gas stations, have you? Or the heating oil distribution centers? Supply is meeting demand.

No, but we have seem rail having to pick up the slack due to insufficient pipeline capacity.

 

[Derec]

I am also guessing that you haven't noticed gas prices lately or are not familiar with the relationship between supply and demand and price.

Gas prices are subject to many factors. Right now oil and gas prices are going up because the Saudis are crying uncle and have finally agreed on an OPEC (+Russia!) supply cut. For the last 2 years Saudis have pursued a policy of flooding the market in the vain hope of ruining the shale/fracking operators in the US. It did not quite work out, even despite the efforts of the useful idiots for the Saudi regime stateside.

 

[JonA]

No. We cannot. You are just plain wrong about this.

... just as we use it now to handle the current oil glut.

Except that we don't. We use trains.

You are wrong about this.

And we can use existing pipeline corridors to replace aging pipelines with new, larger capacity ones. We don't have to expose more of our acreage and aquifers to certain contamination.

I get it: Expose everyone else to the risk.

WTF are you talking about?

I live in a place with a pretty famous pipeline running through it. The damn thing leaks. It always has, and most likely it always will. The pipeline operators have spill response equipment and abatement plans, although they don't always have the required equipment and they can be slow to respond to leaks and spills. Nevertheless, the pipeline is an important piece of infrastructure which is why it's been pretty well maintained and upgraded as needed.

Alaska also has undeveloped natural gas deposits. There are plans to build a pipeline to carry it to markets in the Upper Midwest or to the port in Valdez. I, and most Alaskans, favor the plan to run the new pipeline along the same utility corridor as the other one. The corridor is already cleared, provides good access for inspection and maintenance, has environmental protection plans in place, and the most troublesome points like where it crosses fault lines and changing river channels are largely known. It makes no sense from an environmental p.o.v. to cut a new utility corridor across the state and expose even more soil and water to contamination. It is much more sensible to route any new oil, gas, or other similar products into one corridor that can be monitored more easily and more closely.

This is not exposing everyone else to risk, it is mitigating risk for everyone.

None of that has anything to do with your claim that existing pipelines are able to meet the transportation demands of increased oil production in North Dakota.

That claim is so obviously wrong that you've now apparently given up any attempts to support it in favor of Gish galloping onto more nonsense about an Alaska pipeline that has nothing to do with North Dakota.

You have officially made the jump from ignorant to evil.

You have officially made the jump from considering what people are saying to not giving a fuck about what they post, you're just going to argue with what you want them to have said so you can act all superior about it.

Nonsense. You made the claim that existing pipelines can already handle the increased production.

I realize it's a bad claim. But that's not my problem. You're the one who made it. If you regret doing so, retract it.

Easy as that.

 

[Arctish]

No. We cannot. You are just plain wrong about this.

... just as we use it now to handle the current oil glut.

Except that we don't. We use trains.

You are wrong about this.

And we can use existing pipeline corridors to replace aging pipelines with new, larger capacity ones. We don't have to expose more of our acreage and aquifers to certain contamination.

I get it: Expose everyone else to the risk.

WTF are you talking about?

I live in a place with a pretty famous pipeline running through it. The damn thing leaks. It always has, and most likely it always will. The pipeline operators have spill response equipment and abatement plans, although they don't always have the required equipment and they can be slow to respond to leaks and spills. Nevertheless, the pipeline is an important piece of infrastructure which is why it's been pretty well maintained and upgraded as needed.

Alaska also has undeveloped natural gas deposits. There are plans to build a pipeline to carry it to markets in the Upper Midwest or to the port in Valdez. I, and most Alaskans, favor the plan to run the new pipeline along the same utility corridor as the other one. The corridor is already cleared, provides good access for inspection and maintenance, has environmental protection plans in place, and the most troublesome points like where it crosses fault lines and changing river channels are largely known. It makes no sense from an environmental p.o.v. to cut a new utility corridor across the state and expose even more soil and water to contamination. It is much more sensible to route any new oil, gas, or other similar products into one corridor that can be monitored more easily and more closely.

This is not exposing everyone else to risk, it is mitigating risk for everyone.

None of that has anything to do with your claim that existing pipelines are able to meet the transportation demands of increased oil production in North Dakota.

I have repeatedly said the existing pipelines need to be properly maintained and upgraded. If you don't understand what that means, fine. We can talk about what it means to upgrade a pipeline, and which upgrades lead to increased throughput.

That claim is so obviously wrong that you've now apparently given up any attempts to support it in favor of Gish galloping onto more nonsense about an Alaska pipeline that has nothing to do with North Dakota.

I'm sorry you missed the point of the reference. It was intended to illustrate why running new pipelines along existing utility corridors is preferable to creating new corridors with new areas of environmental contamination in a system already prone to leaks, spills, and catastrophic failures.

You have officially made the jump from ignorant to evil.

You have officially made the jump from considering what people are saying to not giving a fuck about what they post, you're just going to argue with what you want them to have said so you can act all superior about it.

Nonsense. You made the claim that existing pipelines can already handle the increased production.

I realize it's a bad claim. But that's not my problem. You're the one who made it. If you regret doing so, retract it.

Easy as that.

That part of my post was written in response to this bit of arrant nonsense: "I get it: Expose everyone else to the risk. You have officially made the jump from ignorant to evil."

There in nothing in my post that indicates I want anyone to be exposed to risk. In fact, my post is all about reducing risk through proper maintenance and upgrading of existing facilities and limiting new areas of contamination to absolute minimums. It might be a bit subtle but it's not hard to grasp. So you can ride that high horse back to the stable and stop inserting strawman arguments into our discussion.