Jump to content


Keystone Pipeline


Recommended Posts

 

The pipeline does not benefit this country. It will make a hanful of jobs, but the oil is going overseas, and it's profits to Canada. What does it do for us other than occupy our land and create potential risks? Let it die. We have better areas of energy we could be focusing on.

 

Bingo.

 

I find it interesting that conservatives rant on about government taking land/property from individual owners without their consent. They typically don't like government forcing their will on individual local people who oppose it.

 

So....here we have a foreign country (Canada) that needs to get their oil to the coast so it can be refined and most of it shipped somewhere else. The oil companies are trying to get the government to force the issue of putting this pipeline across individual property owners land that don't want it.

 

This pipeline does not benefit the land owner one bit. In fact, it greatly hinders his use of the land. Once the pipeline is built, there are very few jobs in each state where it passes.

 

However, if and when it does leak, these landowners and local communities are the ones left with the mess.

 

If this oil really is for use in the US, then expand or build a new refinery in North Dakota and distribute it from there to the northern part of the US. Why don't they want to do that? Because then it can't be shipped somewhere else.

 

This pipeline is a complete load of BS for the US and the state of Nebraska.

Landowners can still use the property and are greatly compensated for any inconvience that may occur with the line.

 

Cenex has been trying to build a refinery in South Dakota for this pipeline but it is getting black balled by the government. It takes roughly 10 years to get through all the red tape when it comes to building a refinery.

Link to comment

 

 

The pipeline does not benefit this country. It will make a hanful of jobs, but the oil is going overseas, and it's profits to Canada. What does it do for us other than occupy our land and create potential risks? Let it die. We have better areas of energy we could be focusing on.

Bingo.

 

I find it interesting that conservatives rant on about government taking land/property from individual owners without their consent. They typically don't like government forcing their will on individual local people who oppose it.

 

So....here we have a foreign country (Canada) that needs to get their oil to the coast so it can be refined and most of it shipped somewhere else. The oil companies are trying to get the government to force the issue of putting this pipeline across individual property owners land that don't want it.

 

This pipeline does not benefit the land owner one bit. In fact, it greatly hinders his use of the land. Once the pipeline is built, there are very few jobs in each state where it passes.

 

However, if and when it does leak, these landowners and local communities are the ones left with the mess.

 

If this oil really is for use in the US, then expand or build a new refinery in North Dakota and distribute it from there to the northern part of the US. Why don't they want to do that? Because then it can't be shipped somewhere else.

 

This pipeline is a complete load of BS for the US and the state of Nebraska.

Landowners can still use the property and are greatly compensated for any inconvience that may occur with the line.

 

Cenex has been trying to build a refinery in South Dakota for this pipeline but it is getting black balled by the government. It takes roughly 10 years to get through all the red tape when it comes to building a refinery.

 

I live around a pipeline. I laughed out loud at this phrase.

 

Tallgrass Energy owns it and they have been total jack asses to property owners.

 

As to your last sentence. So....they have a battle on their hands one way or the other. Fight to expand or build a refinery. At least then we would actually use the oil from the fight.

Link to comment

I have heard Tallgrass is a pain to work with. They are building a new 6" line where I live and a good friend of mine has the same thoughts on them as you because the line runs through 3 of his quarters.

 

Even though they are that way, it doesn't mean ever pipeline company is the same toward landowners.

 

I do know that if the Keystone got built, some the the refined product would go back into US pipelines.

 

To be honest, I could care less if it's built or not. I just get irritated about people giving pipelines a bad rap even though it is the safest method of moving products.

  • Fire 1
Link to comment

The oil I believe will come to Cushing, Ok - pipeline/storage capital of the USA (and recently receipant of a 5.0 earthquake :o ) and then eventually make it down to the port. I agree wt BRB - build a refinery or 2 in ND or SD. I understand that a company has wanted to build a refinery near Elk Point, SD (I'm originally from Parker, SD about 30 miles away) but cannot get the permits to do so. Perhaps it is the Cenex project that Stumpy mentioned above. SE SD would be a good spot for distribution. Between SF and SC, not far from Omaha, sits on I-29, Easy access to I-90 to the north and I-80 to the south via I-29. Distribution to larger metro areas of Twin Cities, Des Moines, Omaha, Lincoln, and even KC. would not be difficult.

Link to comment
  • 1 year later...

On 11/13/2016 at 5:59 AM, Stumpy1 said:

The largest pipeline we have is 16" and it can exceed flowrates of 5,000 barrels/hr, that is 210,000 gallons/hr. Our average shutdown time on a possible leak is 7 mins. We would lose on average 24,500 gallons in that time period. It is a far cry from what is lost in tanker and train wrecks.

 

When Keystone says that they can have the line shutdown in 11 mins, that is probably correct. Every pipeline is required to run spill drills quarterly and it is simulated like a real leak. Government agencies are also apart of these drills and assist on anything that needs adjusted.

 

13 minutes ago, QMany said:

 

 

 

I guess they didn't get it turned off in 7 minutes.....

 

Edited by funhusker
  • Plus1 3
Link to comment

21 minutes ago, QMany said:

NO DOWNSIDE

 

I don't care what policy is being discussed...no matter if the policy is good or bad.....anyone who ever claims...."NO DOWNSIDE"...instantly proves they are full of s#!t.

 

There are always negative consequences for every action.  It' just a matter if the positives outweigh the negatives.

  • Plus1 2
Link to comment
On 11/12/2016 at 5:26 PM, Stumpy1 said:

I have worked in the pipeline business for over 10 years and have witnessed more tanker truck spills and train wrecks then I have pipeline leaks.

 

According to Hazmat, who we work with, there is 10 tanker wrecks and a train wreck to every pipeline leak. Just to give you an idea on gallons. A tanker will haul anywhere from 7800 - 10,000 gallons depending on the product. A train that is fully loaded will carry an average of 250,000 gallons. It still doesn't make it okay but people tend to give pipelines a bad rap when in reality, it is the safest mode of transportation for petroleum products.

 

On 11/13/2016 at 5:59 AM, Stumpy1 said:

The largest pipeline we have is 16" and it can exceed flowrates of 5,000 barrels/hr, that is 210,000 gallons/hr. Our average shutdown time on a possible leak is 7 mins. We would lose on average 24,500 gallons in that time period. It is a far cry from what is lost in tanker and train wrecks.

 

When Keystone says that they can have the line shutdown in 11 mins, that is probably correct. Every pipeline is required to run spill drills quarterly and it is simulated like a real leak. Government agencies are also apart of these drills and assist on anything that needs adjusted.

 

The leak up here in SD was isolated in 15 minutes, according to reports.  That is not too far off of the 11 minute number, and yet about 210,000 gallons were released.  According to your numbers, that is roughly the same amount of oil that an ENTIRE TRAIN would carry, dumped in a single point in 15 minutes.

 

I am pretty sure the Keystone is 36" Diameter.  Much larger than your point of reference.  Seems to make a huge difference in the massive pollution potential, don't you think?

 

Image result for keystone pipeline leak

Edited by Kiyoat Husker
Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...