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

[laughing dog]

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

It was a joke. Your alt-SJW lack of a sense of humor is duly noted.

 

[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.

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.

You said, specifically:

... just as we use it (existing pipeline infrastructure) now to handle the current oil glut.​

You can either present something to support this claim or you can retract it.

But our discussion will not advance until you do one of those things.

You cannot simply make claims and blow past dealing with them and also expect me to ignore it and let you talk about something else.

So are you ready to deal with this?

 

[laughing dog]

... just as we use it (existing pipeline infrastructure) now to handle the current oil glut.​

You can either present something to support this claim or you can retract it.

But our discussion will not advance until you do one of those things.

You cannot simply make claims and blow past dealing with them and also expect me to ignore it and let you talk about something else.

You have not presented any evidence to support your claims in this thread. Moreover, your rejection of Arctish's claim is simply illogical. The existing pipelines can handle the glut, simply not at the pace that some people would prefer.

 

[Arctish]

You said, specifically:

... just as we use it (existing pipeline infrastructure) now to handle the current oil glut.​

You can either present something to support this claim or you can retract it.

But our discussion will not advance until you do one of those things.

You cannot simply make claims and blow past dealing with them and also expect me to ignore it and let you talk about something else.

So are you ready to deal with this?

The post you quoted contains an embedded link in the words "current oil glut" that supports the claim that the existing pipeline structure can handle and is being used to handle the current oil glut. And I have repeatedly acknowledged the need to build short sections of pipeline to connect new oil fields to the existing system.

You have misunderstood my argument from the beginning.

- - - Updated - - -

... just as we use it (existing pipeline infrastructure) now to handle the current oil glut.​

You can either present something to support this claim or you can retract it.

But our discussion will not advance until you do one of those things.

The existing pipelines can handle the glut, simply not at the pace that some people would prefer.

Indeed.

 

[dismal]

The existing pipelines can handle the glut, simply not at the pace that some people would prefer.

Indeed.

Wha? That's completely nonsensical.

There are laws of physics and stuff that determine how much oil a given pipeline can move.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friction_loss

If there is 300,000 barrels/day of production in an area and 200,000 barrel/day of pipeline capacity out of an area the other 100,000 moves on a truck or train.

 

[JonA]

The post you quoted contains an embedded link in the words "current oil glut" that supports the claim that the existing pipeline structure can handle and is being used to handle the current oil glut.

Now you're just stalling. That link says nothing about pipelines at all.

And I have repeatedly acknowledged the need to build short sections of pipeline to connect new oil fields to the existing system.

That's hardly relevant since DAPL isn't such a line.

You have misunderstood my argument from the beginning.

Not at all. And you've even repeated again exactly what I've understood your argument to be:

... the existing pipeline structure can handle and is being used to handle the current oil glut. ​

That claim is simply false. If you believe otherwise, present your evidence.

- - - Updated - - -

... just as we use it (existing pipeline infrastructure) now to handle the current oil glut.​

You can either present something to support this claim or you can retract it.

But our discussion will not advance until you do one of those things.

The existing pipelines can handle the glut, simply not at the pace that some people would prefer.

Indeed.

When you say "Indeed" to laughing dog's comment, do you mean to agree with his position that pipelines can't actually meet the demand? (because that's what he's saying)

 

[laughing dog]

do you mean to agree with his position that pipelines can't actually meet the demand? (because that's what he's saying)

No, that is not what I wrote. It is obvious that I am saying that pipelines can meet the demand, just not as quickly as some would like.

 

[bilby]

do you mean to agree with his position that pipelines can't actually meet the demand? (because that's what he's saying)

No, that is not what I wrote. It is obvious that I am saying that pipelines can meet the demand, just not as quickly as some would like.

I want my car to go at 500mph, and it meets that demand - but not as quickly as I would like.

 

[Derec]

do you mean to agree with his position that pipelines can't actually meet the demand? (because that's what he's saying)

No, that is not what I wrote. It is obvious that I am saying that pipelines can meet the demand, just not as quickly as some would like.

The demand is the rate. If Bakken produces x bbl/day and the existing pipelines cannot move x bbl in a day, then they can't meet the demand.
It's like saying a two lane road can handle Atlanta's rush hour traffic, just not as quickly as some would like.

 

[bleubird]

Is not the price of oil low because over production? It would seem they could make more profit if they reduced the supply.

 

[Arctish]

Now you're just stalling. That link says nothing about pipelines at all.

You're right.

I had several tabs open when I composed the original post and I thought that link was to a different article.

This is the article I thought I had already shared:

The defining images of the US environmental movement this year have been pictures of members of the Standing Rock Sioux tribe protesting against the construction of the Dakota Access oil pipeline.

The project is intended to carry about 470,000 barrels per day of crude 1,172 miles from the shale oilfields of North Dakota, past the tribe’s reservation, to an oil transport hub in Patoka, Illinois.

The campaign against it is the latest manifestation of environmental activists’ increasingly effective opposition to new pipelines.
For North American pipeline operators such as Energy Transfer Partners, which is building Dakota Access, that opposition is becoming a significant obstacle to growth.

The biggest threat to the pipeline industry, however, has attracted fewer headlines: flagging demand for new infrastructure. The US has almost as much oil pipeline capacity as it needs for the time being, and in some areas already has too much.

Here's another article on the same subject:

The billions upon billions of dollars cheap capital that has been raised for infrastructure MLP (which includes pipeline gathering, compressor and processing MLPs) have resulted in a worsening overcapacity situation in many basins.* There is now too much capacity chasing declining production in nearly every once booming shale basin. *For example, midstream processors in the Haynesville shale are now scrambling for business due falling production and a glut of capacity.* More on the situation in the Haynesville below.

 

[laughing dog]

No, that is not what I wrote. It is obvious that I am saying that pipelines can meet the demand, just not as quickly as some would like.

The demand is the rate.

Whether something or not "meets demand" or not is a function of a number of variables: frequency, capacity and price. If there is a shortage, the market price should rise, thereby reducing the amount the market wishes to purchase. Saying there is a shortage does not mean there is insufficient capacity - it means the market is not functioning efficiently. If a producer of oil cannot get its oil through the pipeline fast enough for its preferences, then there is a shortage of pipeline capacity, but that reflects a mismatch between the market price, market demand and market supply.

 

[fromderinside]

This, to me, looks lie a we can recast anything into Adam Smith form if we try. I'd rather you try a somewhat open system physical model instead. To me the idea of demand can be in many places as the result of many conditions at the same time depending on who's spouting.

 

[JonA]

Is not the price of oil low because over production? It would seem they could make more profit if they reduced the supply.

Who is "they"?

 

[skepticalbip]

Is not the price of oil low because over production? It would seem they could make more profit if they reduced the supply.

The strategy for maximizing profit involves much more than maximizing price. Profit is determined by trade-offs between price, volume, and market share.

 

[dismal]

Is not the price of oil low because over production? It would seem they could make more profit if they reduced the supply.

The strategy for maximizing profit involves much more than maximizing price. Profit is determined by trade-offs between price, volume, and market share.

To be fair, demand for oil is somewhat inelastic and less supply has generally led to more profit. This is the point of OPEC's existence. It's a cartel to limit supply. Of course such cartels are not in the best interest of consumers, and we could also probably do a quick check of who is in OPEC to see if we want to restrict domestic production to help them make more money off oil.

 

[skepticalbip]

The strategy for maximizing profit involves much more than maximizing price. Profit is determined by trade-offs between price, volume, and market share.

To be fair, demand for oil is somewhat inelastic and less supply has generally led to more profit. This is the point of OPEC's existence. It's a cartel to limit supply. Of course such cartels are not in the best interest of consumers, and we could also probably do a quick check of who is in OPEC to see if we want to restrict domestic production to help them make more money off oil.

Granted, decreased supply leads to more per-unit profit, not necessarily maximizing profit for any particular producer. But, if you will remember, the OPEC cutting of supply during the Carter administration resulted in a decrease in demand, increase in US oil exploration and developing new fields, a move to more fuel efficient autos, research into alternative energy sources, etc. In other words more competition for OPEC than there would have been and less demand than there would have been if not for that planned decrease in supply by OPEC.

 

[fromderinside]

Yes. All we have to do is see that one of the players is Oil Can Vladimir leader of the anti Cassocks. So Trump's approach is to drill baby drill to Trump Vlidimir and OPEC. Wonderful short term strategy, one year or so, then kabong back comes the coal cartel.

 

[dismal]

To be fair, demand for oil is somewhat inelastic and less supply has generally led to more profit. This is the point of OPEC's existence. It's a cartel to limit supply. Of course such cartels are not in the best interest of consumers, and we could also probably do a quick check of who is in OPEC to see if we want to restrict domestic production to help them make more money off oil.

Granted, decreased supply leads to more per-unit profit, not necessarily maximizing profit for any particular producer. But, if you will remember, the OPEC cutting of supply during the Carter administration resulted in a decrease in demand, increase in US oil exploration and developing new fields, a move to more fuel efficient autos, research into alternative energy sources, etc. In other words more competition for OPEC than there would have been and less demand than there would have been if not for that planned decrease in supply by OPEC.

With oil it tends to lead to more overall profit. This is why a cartel to restrict supply like OPEC can work. If a ten percent cut in production leads to a 2x higher price, it's muy bueno for oil producers. However a pipeline being blocked for silly political purposes does not tend to limit production much it tends to send production onto truck and rail. At the margin it may cause production to decrease in the affected area but the higher price would cause production to increase in non affected areas.

 

[Potoooooooo]

Native Americans are not averse to casting a critical eye towards their own religion
These editorial cartoons from Indian Country Today criticize the use of eagle feathers,beaks,etc in American Indian ceremonies