Keystone Pipeline

[gobiggergoredder]

I find it interesting that a relatively conserative state like Nebraska would probably be very supportive of drilling in Alaska. But has a far different outlook when it comes to a transport pipeline.

[gobiggergoredder]

Obama is correct (even a blind squirrel finds a nut every once in a while), this leak-prone pipeline should not be going over key aquafiers.

 

And this is where alot of people are wrong. The safety measures to prevent leaks for pipelines are taken very seriously. The DOT and EPA do audits continuously to see if companies are maintaining the correct measures for keeping the pipelines safe. Pipeline companies also have to run tools that moniter and detect any defects that have occured on the pipeline. These defects are then reported to the DOT and determined what the seriousness of it is and the measurements to repairing it. In all honesty, a semi hauling oil has a better chance of having a leak then a pipeline does.

 

Sorry, I don't believe that.

 

Their past history shows me that I should not.

 

Past history with what? Obama is a pipeline engineer now? Regardless of what your opinion of this issue, this is a prime example of two 'ignorant' posts. Provide some info! That's why I enjoy this forum. Frankly, I think your recent arrival in the forum has really dragged it down. You have an opinion on everything and rarely have any information or explanation.

 

I rarely agree with Knapp or Carlfense, but they do a pretty solid job of atleast explaining their stance.

 

If you don't agree with the pipeline that's fine...just say it and move on.

[Sub-Husker]

Past history with what?

 

Go back to sleep, then take your meds before touching the keyboard.

 

Once you acquire some semblance of coherence, do a search on oil spills (the subject of concern in this thread).

 

To make it easier on you, the link below is one such search:

 

http://search.yahoo....-8&fr=yfp-t-471

[Sub-Husker]

If you don't agree with the pipeline that's fine...just say it and move on.

 

It's not that I disagree with the pipeline, I disagree with its route over key aquifers with the current set of safety regulations on the books along with the level of inspection.

[Yossarian]

I find it interesting that a relatively conserative state like Nebraska would probably be very supportive of drilling in Alaska. But has a far different outlook when it comes to a transport pipeline.

 

 

The opposition to the second Keystone pipeline (yes, there's already one) is mostly from a loud minority.

[gobiggergoredder]

Past history with what?

 

Go back to sleep, then take your meds before touching the keyboard.

 

Once you acquire some semblance of coherence, do a search on oil spills (the subject of concern in this thread).

 

To make it easier on you, the link below is one such search:

 

http://search.yahoo....-8&fr=yfp-t-471

 

While I find your research intriguing (typing oil spill into Yahoo), I was looking for a little bit more than that. I'm of the opinion that comparing the Deep Water Horizon to Keystone XL is much like Fukisima to Fort Calhoun.

 

Get some sleep and take med, typing oil spill into yahoo......ignorant. I rest my case.

 

Maybe an article like this may be more appropriate. http://www.adn.com/2010/05/28/1298543/alyeska-awaits-federal-ok-to-restart.html

[Sub-Husker]

While I find your research intriguing (typing oil spill into Yahoo), I was looking for a little bit more than that. I'm of the opinion that comparing the Deep Water Horizon to Keystone XL is much like Fukisima to Fort Calhoun.

 

Fukishima Daiichi probably had a better safety record than the Fort Calhoun facility.

 

Fukishima was subject to a much more severe threat than Calhoun... and earthquake and a tsunami vs a flood.

 

Calhoun could have been a tremendous disaster with a few more inches of water.

 

Regulations for the oil industry are generally very weak.

 

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0617/BP-oil-spill-MMS-shortcomings-include-dearth-of-regulations

 

The controversial Keystone XL Pipeline — which would carry heavy corrosive crude oil from the Tar Sands of Alberta, Canada to Texas and would cross over communities throughout the Midwest and over the Ogallala Aquifer, which supplies water to 30 percent of U.S. agriculture — received a delay from the Obama Administration that is likely to permanently keep the dirty oil in the ground. The delay, analysts say, is one that the pipeline’s investors cannot financially handle. Moreover, when a full environmental review is carried out — one where the corporation building the pipeline doesn’t write the environmental review and where Hillary Clinton’s deputy campaign director isn’t that corporation’s head lobbyist — there’s no way the Keystone XL will be approved.

 

http://cornellsun.com/section/opinion/content/2011/11/11/letter-editor-yes-we-did-stop-pipeline

[Yossarian]

While I find your research intriguing (typing oil spill into Yahoo), I was looking for a little bit more than that. I'm of the opinion that comparing the Deep Water Horizon to Keystone XL is much like Fukisima to Fort Calhoun.

 

Fukishima Daiichi probably had a better safety record than the Fort Calhoun facility.

 

Fukishima was subject to a much more severe threat than Calhoun... and earthquake and a tsunami vs a flood.

 

Calhoun could have been a tremendous disaster with a few more inches of water.

 

Regulations for the oil industry are generally very weak.

 

http://www.csmonitor...-of-regulations

 

The controversial Keystone XL Pipeline — which would carry heavy corrosive crude oil from the Tar Sands of Alberta, Canada to Texas and would cross over communities throughout the Midwest and over the Ogallala Aquifer, which supplies water to 30 percent of U.S. agriculture — received a delay from the Obama Administration that is likely to permanently keep the dirty oil in the ground. The delay, analysts say, is one that the pipeline’s investors cannot financially handle. Moreover, when a full environmental review is carried out — one where the corporation building the pipeline doesn’t write the environmental review and where Hillary Clinton’s deputy campaign director isn’t that corporation’s head lobbyist — there’s no way the Keystone XL will be approved.

 

http://cornellsun.co...d-stop-pipeline

 

 

I see a Reuters report that says Canada is planning on selling its energy products to Asia after Washington delayed a decision to approve the Keystone pipeline project.

 

http://www.reuters.c...&rpc=22&sp=true

 

"This does underscore the necessity of Canada making sure that we are able to access Asia markets for our energy products," Harper told reporters on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum. "That will be an important priority of our government going forward and I indicated that yesterday to the president of China."

 

Heck, it was only 20,000 jobs and we really don't need them....right?

[HSKR]

http://energy.nation.../McCown_map.php

 

This map previously posted explains exactly why the Keystone XL isn't going forward at this point. The fact that the proposed pipeline goes over the Ogallala Aquifer itself has very little to do with the resistance to the pipeline. It's the combination that the pipeline goes over the aquifer THROUGH THE SANDHILLS is where the fight is coming from even those on the Republican side of the aisle. I think that map is very telling in the fact that other then natural gas, there is no pipeline currently dug in ANY part of the Sandhills. The pipeline needs to be built but not through the Sandhills, period. I live so close to the current Keystone pipeline that I could put on my jogging shoes and run to it in about 10 minutes if I wanted to. I have absolutely no problem living that close to it either. At the same time, I absolutely don't want to see this thing run through the Sandhills even if the newer pipelines built today are many times safer then past pipelines. Why do feel this way? If the current pipeline ever had any problems the mess it would make would be minimal because of the soil it is buried in, even at locations close to water sources. Putting a pipeline in the Sandhills is a completely different story. If you want to do a little experiment, take a couple of two liter pop bottles, fill one half full with highly packed topsoil and the other half full with sand and then pour a quart of oil in each one and see how long it takes for that oil to reach the bottom of the sand bottle compared to the topsoil. Now imagine that parts of the XL pipeline is going to be dug in areas where the water table could be a few feet away from it....in sand.

 

There is nobody else to blame than those who planned the current XL route. If you look at the pipeline on that map in SD they to decided to shorten the route and cut it through the Sandhills instead of continuing the straight path which in the end would have allowed it to parallel the current Keystone pipeline through Eastern Nebraska where the first pipeline construction met very little resistance. Had the developers of the XL chosen to do this, I have no doubt construction would already be under way. Whoever decided the Sandhills option was a good choice, well I hope they still don't have a job. The fact that this thing is going to be delayed is a bad thing for future fuel prices, no doubt. What bothers me is why can't they come up with an alternative route in a month when it really seems like common sense on what to do? Why is this going to take months or even years to get the XL done?

[HSKR]

While I find your research intriguing (typing oil spill into Yahoo), I was looking for a little bit more than that. I'm of the opinion that comparing the Deep Water Horizon to Keystone XL is much like Fukisima to Fort Calhoun.

 

Fukishima Daiichi probably had a better safety record than the Fort Calhoun facility.

 

Fukishima was subject to a much more severe threat than Calhoun... and earthquake and a tsunami vs a flood.

 

Calhoun could have been a tremendous disaster with a few more inches of water.

 

Regulations for the oil industry are generally very weak.

 

http://www.csmonitor...-of-regulations

 

The controversial Keystone XL Pipeline — which would carry heavy corrosive crude oil from the Tar Sands of Alberta, Canada to Texas and would cross over communities throughout the Midwest and over the Ogallala Aquifer, which supplies water to 30 percent of U.S. agriculture — received a delay from the Obama Administration that is likely to permanently keep the dirty oil in the ground. The delay, analysts say, is one that the pipeline’s investors cannot financially handle. Moreover, when a full environmental review is carried out — one where the corporation building the pipeline doesn’t write the environmental review and where Hillary Clinton’s deputy campaign director isn’t that corporation’s head lobbyist — there’s no way the Keystone XL will be approved.

 

http://cornellsun.co...d-stop-pipeline

 

 

I see a Reuters report that says Canada is planning on selling its energy products to Asia after Washington delayed a decision to approve the Keystone pipeline project.

 

http://www.reuters.c...&rpc=22&sp=true

 

"This does underscore the necessity of Canada making sure that we are able to access Asia markets for our energy products," Harper told reporters on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum. "That will be an important priority of our government going forward and I indicated that yesterday to the president of China."

 

Heck, it was only 20,000 jobs and we really don't need them....right?

 

 

The pipeline needs to be built to move the oil, the jobs side of the argument isn't really that big of a deal. Almost all of the jobs are temporary and the workers are unionized and come from outside areas and move along the pipeline as it is being built. Sure it might bring a temporary boost to a local economy here or there but in the grand scheme of things, it doesn't mean much, not near as much as having to import that oil from further away locations and keeping fuel prices lower for a longer period of time. As for the the shipping the oil to Asia thing, that was said a long time ago. In the end it wouldn't have surprised me if they ended up shipping to Asia whether our pipeline got built or not.

[Moiraine]

I'm not sure why anyone ever cites the EPA to prove a point. Their word means almost nothing. That being said, I'm assuming an underground pipeline would be a lot easier to monitor and repair than a well that's three miles below the ocean surface.

 

I don't understand why people focus so much on this stuff though. We're talking mostly temporary jobs here. Temporary is better than nothing, but it's still temporary. We're talking 700,000 barrels per day. That's about 1/30th of what the U.S. uses per day. How much cheaper is it to make this pipeline than to import the oil from one of the usual countries? How much does it actually matter if we do this? Is it because it's lots cheaper, or because we want to buy 700,000 less barrels from <insert name of middle eastern country here>? (I'm actually asking. I don't know the cost comparison). But I think people spend way too much time thinking of how we can get oil faster and cheaper and keep our daily lives exactly the same, and too little time thinking of how we could just consume less oil in the first place. I mean, the chick at the grocery store I go to double bags my toilet paper before I can stop her. (On a completely unrelated note, I really want to know why. Does she think I'll be embarrassed that someone might find out that I go to the bathroom on occasion, and thus want to hide my purchase?)

[Yossarian]

If the issues are this "cut and dried," why does the Obama Administration need another year to study the problem? I know the answer...so does everyone else.

[Stumpy1]

http://energy.nation.../McCown_map.php

 

This map previously posted explains exactly why the Keystone XL isn't going forward at this point. The fact that the proposed pipeline goes over the Ogallala Aquifer itself has very little to do with the resistance to the pipeline. It's the combination that the pipeline goes over the aquifer THROUGH THE SANDHILLS is where the fight is coming from even those on the Republican side of the aisle. I think that map is very telling in the fact that other then natural gas, there is no pipeline currently dug in ANY part of the Sandhills. The pipeline needs to be built but not through the Sandhills, period. I live so close to the current Keystone pipeline that I could put on my jogging shoes and run to it in about 10 minutes if I wanted to. I have absolutely no problem living that close to it either. At the same time, I absolutely don't want to see this thing run through the Sandhills even if the newer pipelines built today are many times safer then past pipelines. Why do feel this way? If the current pipeline ever had any problems the mess it would make would be minimal because of the soil it is buried in, even at locations close to water sources. Putting a pipeline in the Sandhills is a completely different story. If you want to do a little experiment, take a couple of two liter pop bottles, fill one half full with highly packed topsoil and the other half full with sand and then pour a quart of oil in each one and see how long it takes for that oil to reach the bottom of the sand bottle compared to the topsoil. Now imagine that parts of the XL pipeline is going to be dug in areas where the water table could be a few feet away from it....in sand.

 

There is nobody else to blame than those who planned the current XL route. If you look at the pipeline on that map in SD they to decided to shorten the route and cut it through the Sandhills instead of continuing the straight path which in the end would have allowed it to parallel the current Keystone pipeline through Eastern Nebraska where the first pipeline construction met very little resistance. Had the developers of the XL chosen to do this, I have no doubt construction would already be under way. Whoever decided the Sandhills option was a good choice, well I hope they still don't have a job. The fact that this thing is going to be delayed is a bad thing for future fuel prices, no doubt. What bothers me is why can't they come up with an alternative route in a month when it really seems like common sense on what to do? Why is this going to take months or even years to get the XL done?

If you want to do this experiment, use molasses instead of motor oil. Motor oil is a by-product of refined crude oil and is less dense then crude. Crude oil is so thick that they need to heat it up before it goes into the pipe and continuosly keep the temperature in order for the oil the flow thru the pipeline. That is one of the reasons that the pipeline is to be incased in concrete and buried deeper then usual.

[HSKR]

http://energy.nation.../McCown_map.php

 

This map previously posted explains exactly why the Keystone XL isn't going forward at this point. The fact that the proposed pipeline goes over the Ogallala Aquifer itself has very little to do with the resistance to the pipeline. It's the combination that the pipeline goes over the aquifer THROUGH THE SANDHILLS is where the fight is coming from even those on the Republican side of the aisle. I think that map is very telling in the fact that other then natural gas, there is no pipeline currently dug in ANY part of the Sandhills. The pipeline needs to be built but not through the Sandhills, period. I live so close to the current Keystone pipeline that I could put on my jogging shoes and run to it in about 10 minutes if I wanted to. I have absolutely no problem living that close to it either. At the same time, I absolutely don't want to see this thing run through the Sandhills even if the newer pipelines built today are many times safer then past pipelines. Why do feel this way? If the current pipeline ever had any problems the mess it would make would be minimal because of the soil it is buried in, even at locations close to water sources. Putting a pipeline in the Sandhills is a completely different story. If you want to do a little experiment, take a couple of two liter pop bottles, fill one half full with highly packed topsoil and the other half full with sand and then pour a quart of oil in each one and see how long it takes for that oil to reach the bottom of the sand bottle compared to the topsoil. Now imagine that parts of the XL pipeline is going to be dug in areas where the water table could be a few feet away from it....in sand.

 

There is nobody else to blame than those who planned the current XL route. If you look at the pipeline on that map in SD they to decided to shorten the route and cut it through the Sandhills instead of continuing the straight path which in the end would have allowed it to parallel the current Keystone pipeline through Eastern Nebraska where the first pipeline construction met very little resistance. Had the developers of the XL chosen to do this, I have no doubt construction would already be under way. Whoever decided the Sandhills option was a good choice, well I hope they still don't have a job. The fact that this thing is going to be delayed is a bad thing for future fuel prices, no doubt. What bothers me is why can't they come up with an alternative route in a month when it really seems like common sense on what to do? Why is this going to take months or even years to get the XL done?

If you want to do this experiment, use molasses instead of motor oil. Motor oil is a by-product of refined crude oil and is less dense then crude. Crude oil is so thick that they need to heat it up before it goes into the pipe and continuosly keep the temperature in order for the oil the flow thru the pipeline. That is one of the reasons that the pipeline is to be incased in concrete and buried deeper then usual.

 

That's makes no sense to argue. In it's natural cold state is like molasses. If it is heated to move through the pipeline, it's still heated coming out of any leak and is still going to spread until it cools back down, so I don't get the molasses argument at all. The damage will be done by the time it cools off. To be honest, my biggest fear isn't the pipeline developing a random leak but I could see this being one of the easiest eco-terrorism targets out there. Simply digging down to the line with explosives would be bad enough. How hard would it be for a terrorist to learn how to bypass the safety sensors in the line, put some holes in it leave and see how many days or weeks it take for someone to find out. I bet it would be easier to do that then to learn how to fly a jet liner into a building. Put the thing in good soil, leave it out of the Sandhills and it's a done deal. BTW, can anyone answer me why there are no other pipelines other then natural gas that go through the Sandhills?

[The Dude]

http://journalstar.com/news/unicameral/transcanada-agrees-to-not-seek-sandhills-route-for-pipeline/article_0c40fe6c-df15-5ea1-8cab-1cee8725fd04.html