Keystone XL pipeline - why the fuss?

Page 11 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Zorkorist

Diamond Member
Apr 17, 2007
6,861
3
76
Maybe you can educate me in a few sentences, and then post those links for further reading.

I know;

Obama won't sign it. (Liberal)
Everyone else wants it. (Conservative)

Obama is 'feared of Global Warming, and repercussions from Native Americans (Indians.) Can you imagine that he starts a new war here in America. ;) (Tongue firmly in cheek.)

-John
 
Last edited:

Zorkorist

Diamond Member
Apr 17, 2007
6,861
3
76
But my earlier point remains,

What's Government got to do with it?

Did you answer that with your links?

-John
 
Nov 25, 2013
32,083
11,718
136
Maybe you can educate me in a few sentences, and then post those links for further reading.

I know;

Obama won't sign it. (Liberal)
Everyone else wants it. (Conservative)

Obama is 'feared of Global Warming, and repercussions from Native Americans (Indians.) Can you imagine that he starts a new war here in America. ;) (Tongue firmly in cheek.)

-John

Read the stories, educate yourself. It's about real people facing real issues.
 

Zorkorist

Diamond Member
Apr 17, 2007
6,861
3
76
Yes, almost invariably...less the oil cos. Manage to get it up and running without any leaks, say into the water table...I'm not exactly holding my breath.
As we are learning now...

Cancer is the symptom, of a life lived, and is an insidious disease.

Yeah, will an oil pipeline increase your risk of Cancer, but so will an elevator.

It's life. Death is characterized by Cancer.

-John
 

uclaLabrat

Diamond Member
Aug 2, 2007
5,632
3,045
136
As we are learning now...

Cancer is the symptom, of a life lived, and is an insidious disease.

Yeah, will an oil pipeline increase your risk of Cancer, but so will an elevator.

It's life. Death is characterized by Cancer.

-John
Yes. A fucking elevator will increase your risk of cancer, you stupid, ignorant, mouth breathing fucktard. But no, exposure to compounds found in oil (hint, we call them carcinogens) will do no such thing.

Sweet baby J you're a fucking moron.
 

Zorkorist

Diamond Member
Apr 17, 2007
6,861
3
76
I hope you don't lose a loved one to the child cancer ward, or any of the mostly genetically explained cancers, and these long life cancers, like the elevator cancer, I hope you get. ;)

Anyway, bullshit, nobodies gonna get that much MORE cancer with a pipeline through their back yard.

-John
 

uclaLabrat

Diamond Member
Aug 2, 2007
5,632
3,045
136
I hope you don't lose a loved one to the child cancer ward, or any of the mostly genetically explained cancers, and these long life cancers, like the elevator cancer, I hope you get. ;)

Anyway, bullshit, nobodies gonna get that much MORE cancer with a pipeline through their back yard.

-John
Holy shit. You can't be this stupid. It's demonstrably proven that oil pipelines leak, and they leak things that cause cancer and find their way into water supplies. I understand you don't want to believe this, but that doesn't change the facts.
 
Nov 25, 2013
32,083
11,718
136
Holy shit. You can't be this stupid. It's demonstrably proven that oil pipelines leak, and they leak things that cause cancer and find their way into water supplies. I understand you don't want to believe this, but that doesn't change the facts.

He doesn't seem to be someone that cares about actual facts.
 

Hugo Drax

Diamond Member
Nov 20, 2011
5,647
47
91
Maybe you can educate me in a few sentences, and then post those links for further reading.

I know;

Obama won't sign it. (Liberal)
Everyone else wants it. (Conservative)

Obama is 'feared of Global Warming, and repercussions from Native Americans (Indians.) Can you imagine that he starts a new war here in America. ;) (Tongue firmly in cheek.)

-John

XL Pipeline means higher gas prices for Americans.

Excess crude cannot be exported out of the US. but the Crude from the XL can be sent down to refineries in the gulf, where refined product can be exported. (To Asia etc..)

it is not about helping the sheeple who want the pipe and probably suck at math,do not read newspapers except for the sports section It is all about opening up arbitrage opportunities and fatter profits for the big guys who donate to your favorite republican politician on the take.


Democrats are just as corrupt. Remember R/D are two faces of the same coin.
 

Lash444

Golden Member
Sep 17, 2002
1,708
64
91
We're pretty good, technology wise, with pipelines today.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Alaska_Pipeline_System

They haven't killed millions, or wildlife ecosystems destroyed.

That Obama would block a self-funded pipeline, just shows his disdain for America, and the American way.

-John

The company lies to landowners about imminent domain.
TransCanada's Keystone I had 14 oil leaks in the first year. (Pretty good with pipelines today? What qualifies as "pretty good"? Cause 14 leaks in a year, one of which was 21,000 gallons, doesnt qualify imo.
Tar sands are incredibly difficult to clean up. Costs associated with it are high. I believe the Kalamazoo river leak required dredging of the river because the oil doesn't float up on top.

Take your partisan blinders off. The company says that if they spill, they will be responsible for cleanup.

Have you followed any disasters in the recent past? How often have the people who are responsible for superfund sites and other ecological disasters managed to make things right with all the people affected. How many people's water supplies have been tainted from these types of companies.

You want Obama to just sign off because its already paid for? Thats it? Thats all that you take into consideration? You don't weigh any other matters into account.

Sorry, but that is beyond stupid.
 

michal1980

Diamond Member
Mar 7, 2003
8,019
43
91
The company lies to landowners about imminent domain.
TransCanada's Keystone I had 14 oil leaks in the first year. (Pretty good with pipelines today? What qualifies as "pretty good"? Cause 14 leaks in a year, one of which was 21,000 gallons, doesnt qualify imo.
Tar sands are incredibly difficult to clean up. Costs associated with it are high. I believe the Kalamazoo river leak required dredging of the river because the oil doesn't float up on top.

Take your partisan blinders off. The company says that if they spill, they will be responsible for cleanup.

Have you followed any disasters in the recent past? How often have the people who are responsible for superfund sites and other ecological disasters managed to make things right with all the people affected. How many people's water supplies have been tainted from these types of companies.

You want Obama to just sign off because its already paid for? Thats it? Thats all that you take into consideration? You don't weigh any other matters into account.

Sorry, but that is beyond stupid.

the oil is already being moved. Moving via pipeline is better then train. The oil is already being dug out of the ground. You stopping this pipeline is nothing but typical liberal banner waving, feel-goodism.
 

OutHouse

Lifer
Jun 5, 2000
36,410
616
126
The company lies to landowners about imminent domain.
TransCanada's Keystone I had 14 oil leaks in the first year. (Pretty good with pipelines today? What qualifies as "pretty good"? Cause 14 leaks in a year, one of which was 21,000 gallons, doesnt qualify imo.
Tar sands are incredibly difficult to clean up. Costs associated with it are high. I believe the Kalamazoo river leak required dredging of the river because the oil doesn't float up on top.

Take your partisan blinders off. The company says that if they spill, they will be responsible for cleanup.

Have you followed any disasters in the recent past? How often have the people who are responsible for superfund sites and other ecological disasters managed to make things right with all the people affected. How many people's water supplies have been tainted from these types of companies.

You want Obama to just sign off because its already paid for? Thats it? Thats all that you take into consideration? You don't weigh any other matters into account.

Sorry, but that is beyond stupid.

In the US, How many oil and natural gas pipelines are there, and combined now many miles to the amount to? now now many leaks are there per year? and how many barrels of oil or CF of NG is leaked out?

Ive got several pipelines near me, and im not worried one bit.
 

Lash444

Golden Member
Sep 17, 2002
1,708
64
91
really the only thing to worry about is the dipshit with a backhoe

How much are you benefitting from it, and how much is my country benefitting from it?

Its a risk/reward thing. Tar sand oil from everything that I have read is nasty stuff. Read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalamazoo_River_oil_spill

How did the cleanup of this spill work out? Can anyone give me a realistic status of it? How much is something like that worth to you? How many jobs needs to be provided to our country to make up for a potential tar sands oil spill?

I understand you guys are about progress. And you aren't worried about pipelines in your backyard. Its "safer" than other methods...I dont disagree. But at the end of the day, if we are taking a risk, I want to be assured that the potential reward far exceeds the risk. I'm not so sure that in this case it does.
 

himkhan

Senior member
Jul 13, 2013
665
370
136
In the US, How many oil and natural gas pipelines are there, and combined now many miles to the amount to? now now many leaks are there per year? and how many barrels of oil or CF of NG is leaked out?

Ive got several pipelines near me, and im not worried one bit.

You should be worried.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalamazoo_River_oil_spill

The Kalamazoo River oil spill occurred in July 2010 when a pipeline operated by Enbridge (Line 6B) burst and flowed into Talmadge Creek, a tributary of the Kalamazoo River. A six-foot break in the pipeline resulted in the largest inland oil spill, and one of the costliest spills, in U.S. history. The pipeline carries diluted bitumen (dilbit), a heavy crude oil from Canada's Athabasca oil sands to the United States. Following the spill, the volatile hydrocarbon diluents evaporated, leaving the heavier bitumen to sink in the water column. Thirty-five miles of the Kalamazoo River were closed for clean-up until June 2012, when portions of the river were re-opened. On March 14, 2013 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ordered Enbridge to return to dredge portions of the river to remove submerged oil and oil-contaminated sediment.

The spill presented a unique cleanup challenge, because 6B was carrying bitumen, a thick crude oil mined from Canada's tar sands region that is thinned with a cocktail of liquid chemicals to form diluted bitumen, or dilbit. As the chemicals evaporated, the bitumen sank to the river bottom in sticky, marble-sized globs. That meant that conventional cleanup measures designed to clean up oil floating on the surface of the water no longer worked.

Like I said... if you aren't worried, you SHOULD be, the the disaster in the Kalamazoo River was of the largest tar sands oil spills ever in the Midwest, and one of many pipeline accidents in Michigan. Enbridge is responsible for hundreds of oil spills in the last decade. They'll be cleaning this shit up for years but yeah, the solution more pipelines!!! </facepalm>.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
52,915
46,858
136
Just an hour ago I waited for a 400 tanker car train, the cars had flammable placards with the number 1267.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_UN_numbers_1201_to_1300

Crude oil is making it to the refineries in the gulf region via rail, ship, and pipeline.

Most likely Bakken crude, not diluted bitumen. There probably would not be much opposition (with slightly altered routing) to a crude only pipeline to replace arguably less safe train shipments. I mean a Canadian rail company's negligence incinerated a town...I don't have huge amounts of faith that a similar or much worse disaster could not occur in the US.

The whole enterprise of shipping large amounts of diluted bitumen through the US by any means should be reconsidered. I would much prefer Canada assume the higher logistical and ecological risks since the US gets basically nothing in return.