Anyone who disputes this .. have lost touch with reality...

[kaz]

My interest, however, is in seeing us move on from fossil fuels…

So do you support nuclear power on a massive scale, or do you live in a dream world? Those are based on our current technologies the only choices. Hydro is basically limited to where we are now because there is no more land to dam. Wind and solar are a boondoggle far from providing more than a fringe portion of our energy. Other alternatives like geothermal are decades away from being big time.

I hear so many people say what you did and then they oppose nuclear. I'm not saying you do, just asking. BTW, I spent a bunch of my career in management at GE Nuclear Energy and a bunch more in management at GE Power Systems (parent of Nuclear and other divisions).

The right answer right now if you actually just want to reduce emissions is to support nuclear, natural gas and clean burning coal. The H series of GE turbines for example (clean burning coal) are very low emissions. The whole alternative energy business is just a money pit, at least at this stage. Fossil plants are not all the same, not by a long shot. And we get the most bang for our buck by using the right fossil fuels, not shunning them.

 

[mamooth]

One mile of pipeline having a leak in ALL of the ONE mile will spill 703 barrels.

Now for all you Keystone critics..i.e. people out of touch with reality...
Dispute the above facts...

Geez, is nobody here capable of doing math? Or plumbing, for that matter?

A 3-foot diameter pipeline, one mile.

3 * 3 / 4 * pi * 5280 = 37000 cubic feet

42 gallons in a barrel, 7.5 gallons per cubic foot makes 5.6 cubic feet / barrel

37000/5.6 = 6600 barrels / mile

So, you were only off by a factor of 10. Now, let's talk about plumbing.

The plumbing in my house only contains a few gallon of water at any given time.

Hence, if I rip any of my pipes open and walk away, clearly only a few gallons can spill, hence plumbing leaks are never a problem.

Oh wait, that's not how it works. Thousands of gallons will pour out and keep pouring out, until it's shut off somewhere upstream.

Same with pipelines. How much oil is in a mile isn't the issue. The issue is the flow rate, and how long it goes on.

Let's do the calculation differently and talk about real world scenarios. Flow rate, 400 barrels/minute. Assume a 1% pinhole leak which goes undetected for 2 weeks. It's an underground pipeline, so small leaks won't be obvious, and they won't trigger an auto-shutoff.

400 * 0.01 * 60 * 24 * 14 = 80,000 barrels.

And before anyone pulls a kaz and pisses themselves in rage, note I haven't said anything about my position on the pipeline. I'm just injecting some reality into the discussion.

 

[healthmyths]

first of all want to thank you for at least taking the time to provide some type of retort.

The EXPERTS say (which by the way are you an expert???) Association of Oil Pipe Lines says:
AOPL*| Answers to Common Questions
Product moves from three to eight miles per hour depending upon line size, pressure, and other factors
such as the density and viscosity of the liquid being transported. At these rates, it takes from 14 to 22 days to move liquids from Houston, Texas to New York City.

Your entire assumption is based on a 1% pinhole going undetected for your assumed 2 weeks.

I contacted a Keystone Lead Project manager with this question:
"Will the loss of 5,714 barrels a day through the 1% pinhole go undetected for 2 weeks."

Answer:
"Ok.
First, modern pipelines have more redundant protections on them than an airplane or spacecraft.
Part of that protection is the testing of the fabrication,
part of it is protective coatings,
part of it is an induced current for cathodic protection, and the monitoring can detect hundreds of barrels that go missing (even smaller if it happens quickly).
In other words, the situation you described would be detected within a couple of hours.

All of the recent leaks were in 40 to 70 year old pipe. This old pipe had lesser monitoring, old decayed coatings, and fewer tests of the fabrication.
The cathodic protection was retrofitted onto the system.
When the leaks are investigated, nearly all of them started at locations where a third party damaged the pipe coating, and didn't notify anyone. "

So an EXPERT said:
"a leak of a couple of hours NOT 2 weeks! so less then 500 BARRELS...not 80,000 barrels!
Also your cliched meme of leaks is based on as the EXPERT said.. 40 to 70 year old pipes.. that don't have the modern protective coverings much less monitoring system!
So please re-think your statement and change the equation to a "2 hours" before detection!

Mamooth ...please what is YOUR response?

 

[healthmyths]

Facts and rationality never got in the way of a Liberal or an environmentalist.

Keystone is the hot-button topic du jour. They are having a field day with it and the only way to defeat it is to appeal to emotional irrational fears.

you know, h… i'd say that it's kind of bizarre for the right to not give a flying whatever about our environment.

so maybe before you dismiss everyone who hasn't been sucked in by multi-national corporations, the discussion should at least be had.

i think that's the problem with the right… the totally dismissive way anything that's socially responsible is treated.

But YOU are not socially responsible!
YOU obviously don't comprehend the damages done by an Oil tanker carrying 1 million barrels of oil over the open ocean!
Canada is going to sell that oil. They will transport that oil without the Keystone pipeline to China via oil tankers each holding 1 million barrels!

If you are SO socially responsible.. why in God's sake would you want to risk 1 million barrels going on the OCEAN when it can travel FAR SAFER over 1,719 miles in a pipe
that according to experts with latest technology ANY LEAK will be detected and repaired in less then several hours.
Do you tell me you would prefer oil tankers crashing and despoiling 11,000 square miles of the ocean as Exxon Valdez did?
Or would you take the lesser of the two evils and have it go over safe land in a triple secure pipeline monitored such that any leaks are detected and the pipe shut down immediately!

Which is the bigger number 1 million barrels in ONE tanker traveling one mile OR
703 barrels traveling ONE mile underground on dry land?

 

[Synthaholic]

And the basis for you knowledge that while the US is an IMPORTER of oil, we're going to ship what we refine overseas would be what exactly?

Most of that is Alaskan oil. It's cheaper to ship Alaskan oil to Asian countries and buy it from Canada, Mexico, Venezuala etc. than it is to ship Alaskan oil to the refineries in the gulf. Tankers can't even go through the Panama Canal, they are too big.

False. We don't export "refined oil". We export refined gasoline.

Like in the chart.

 

[Synthaholic]

I sit on a petroleum industry-funded board and we spend about $100,000/year by partnering with our state's Department of Natural Resources in identifying abandoned drilling and production facilities throughout the state. We take it upon ourselves to pay for the clean up and remediation of these "brownfields".

Our next project we are working on is partnering with soil and water conservation districts toward the remediation of similarly brine-damaged sites. We've gone through about $50,000 just in the planning stages. It will ultimately end up being a million dollar project. I, and my peers, do give a flying whatever.

@Mr. H you have a particular perspective. and, unlike the right, i'm not dismissing YOUR perspective. My interest, however, is in seeing us move on from fossil fuels… not only as an environmental issue, which it is, but as a security issue. we can't keep enriching countries that hate us. and it's not like any pipeline oil is going to us… it will go to oil companies… who are the same people we're currently enriching.

therefore, while oil matters, the dismissal of any alternatives and the dismissal of people raising alternatives is short-sighted.

you can't have a meaningful discussion in the face of disrespect. (like the o/p's).

Then why are all the progressive enviro whackos so against getting their oil from Canada; we have ethical oil.

We're not into beheading, we have fabulous donuts and super beer.


What's not to love? Well ok I keep grovelling over Bieber (sorries forever). But we did give you BTO, Rush, April Wine, Tragically Hip, Nickleback Steppenwolf, Chilliwack and more so I think we've made up for the Bieb over the years.



Ruh roh I don't want to get negged by Syn for forgetting Gino Vanelli. Oh and Max Webster with Kim Mitchell, Our Lady Peace, Red Ryder with one of my favorites Tom Cochrane, of course Alannah Myles and some of the best folkies on the planet with Gordon Lightfoot, Bruce Cockburn and Joni Mitchell just to name a few.

Negged for misspelling Vannelli!

 

[Synthaholic]

One train totally derailed puts in one mile 40,000 barrels.

Where are you getting this?

Show me an instance where a train totally derailed and spilled 40,000 barrels.

The point is, it COULD happen. Amiright?

The same way shit COULD happen with hydraulic fracturing, or drilling ANWR or the eastern Gulf, or the OCS.

I've been listening to that argument for over 35 years. Because something COULD happen, ban the whole damn process.

Could happen, Kemo Sabe?

Fracking to blame? Texas rocked by 16 earthquakes in last 3 weeks ? RT USA

Texans angrily protest fracking after 30 earthquakes hit town ? RT USA

The fracking-earthquake connection | Dallas Morning News

Earthquake expert acknowledges fracking risks | Austin News & Weather | Austin Texas, Round Rock, TX | kxan.com

Fracking Practices to Blame for Ohio Earthquakes | LiveScience

Oklahoma:

 

[healthmyths]

Where are you getting this?

Show me an instance where a train totally derailed and spilled 40,000 barrels.

The point is, it COULD happen. Amiright?

The same way shit COULD happen with hydraulic fracturing, or drilling ANWR or the eastern Gulf, or the OCS.

I've been listening to that argument for over 35 years. Because something COULD happen, ban the whole damn process.

Could happen, Kemo Sabe?

Fracking to blame? Texas rocked by 16 earthquakes in last 3 weeks ? RT USA

Texans angrily protest fracking after 30 earthquakes hit town ? RT USA

The fracking-earthquake connection | Dallas Morning News

Earthquake expert acknowledges fracking risks | Austin News & Weather | Austin Texas, Round Rock, TX | kxan.com

Fracking Practices to Blame for Ohio Earthquakes | LiveScience

Oklahoma:

When and where were the first seismometers placed in Texas that started to detect these earthquakes?

A STS-2 seismometer was installed close to the location of Locy seismometer and was recording
seismic data for almost 3 weeks (22 days from May 11 to June 1, 2012), during which time recorded
the Texas earthquake (Mw = 4.8) on May 17, 2012. This event was the only significant earthquake that
was RECOGNISED on the STS-2 records.
http://www.earth.northwestern.edu/~amir/files/SESIMOMETER_REPORT_2012.pdf

How about 100 years ago in East Texas were there any seismometers installed when "bubbling crude" was being pumped?

My point is yup.
We are sensing earthquakes here in Texas.
We probably will never know why my bedroom wall has a crack but I betcha it's that damn fracking!
Never mind Texas soil is known to stretch and contract -- greatly!

 

[healthmyths]

BUT WHAT THE dang gummit does earthquakes in Texas have to do with the FACT that oil tankers with 1 million barrels have a greater chance of spillage and will spill more then the Keystone pipeline?

And for the idiots complaining about "frackquakes"??? This should give MORE reason for Keystone..i.e. cheaper oil then "fracked" oil?

 

[healthmyths]

By the way.. ever heard of New Madrid MO. ???
Now that was an earthquake!
After the February 7 earthquake, boatmen reported that the Mississippi actually ran backwards for several hours.
New Madrid, MO - Official Website - Strange Happenings during the Earthquakes

 

[Politico]

An again there will always be tankers. It doesn't matter how many pipelines you lay.

 

[healthmyths]

there will always be car accidents so why wear seat belts makes as much sense as your comment!

 

[healthmyths]

The concept is "the lesser of two evils".
Canada is shipping one million barrels whether the pipeline is built or not!
So let's reduce the risks, i.e. not ship by 1 million barrel tankers at least from the dangerous NW Pacific and ship
via a pipeline that is far less dangerous AND we can at least recover some costs.. i.e. jobs, fees,taxes,etc?
Otherwise we'll have the expenses of clean up "Remember the Valdez!! " and nothing in the way of revenue!

 

[Mr. H.]

Where are you getting this?

Show me an instance where a train totally derailed and spilled 40,000 barrels.

The point is, it COULD happen. Amiright?

The same way shit COULD happen with hydraulic fracturing, or drilling ANWR or the eastern Gulf, or the OCS.

I've been listening to that argument for over 35 years. Because something COULD happen, ban the whole damn process.

Could happen, Kemo Sabe?

Fracking to blame? Texas rocked by 16 earthquakes in last 3 weeks ? RT USA

Texans angrily protest fracking after 30 earthquakes hit town ? RT USA

The fracking-earthquake connection | Dallas Morning News

Earthquake expert acknowledges fracking risks | Austin News & Weather | Austin Texas, Round Rock, TX | kxan.com

Fracking Practices to Blame for Ohio Earthquakes | LiveScience

Oklahoma:

Injection wells, or the actual fracturing process? That's the debate and the focus of investigation. And an inconsequential product of a highly successful endeavor IMO.

BTW... that's MISTER Kemo Sabe to you, bub!

 

[Synthaholic]

BUT WHAT THE dang gummit does earthquakes in Texas have to do with the FACT that oil tankers with 1 million barrels have a greater chance of spillage and will spill more then the Keystone pipeline?

And for the idiots complaining about "frackquakes"??? This should give MORE reason for Keystone..i.e. cheaper oil then "fracked" oil?

Please list the oil tanker spills that were not a result of human error. Tankers are very safe, but could be made even safer with more regulations/enforcement.

 

[Synthaholic]

The concept is "the lesser of two evils".
Canada is shipping one million barrels whether the pipeline is built or not!
So let's reduce the risks, i.e. not ship by 1 million barrel tankers at least from the dangerous NW Pacific and ship
via a pipeline that is far less dangerous AND we can at least recover some costs.. i.e. jobs, fees,taxes,etc?
Otherwise we'll have the expenses of clean up "Remember the Valdez!! " and nothing in the way of revenue!

The Valdez was human error.


Identified causes

Multiple factors have been identified as contributing to the incident:

• Exxon Shipping Company failed to supervise the master and provide a rested and sufficient crew for Exxon Valdez. The NTSB found this was widespread throughout the industry, prompting a safety recommendation to Exxon and to the industry.[15]
• The third mate failed to properly maneuver the vessel, possibly due to fatigue or excessive workload.[15]
• Exxon Shipping Company failed to properly maintain the Raytheon Collision Avoidance System (RAYCAS) radar, which, if functional, would have indicated to the third mate an impending collision with the Bligh Reef by detecting the "radar reflector", placed on the next rock inland from Bligh Reef for the purpose of keeping boats on course via radar.[16]

Captain Joseph Hazelwood, who was widely reported to have been drinking heavily that night, was not at the controls when the ship struck the reef. However, as the senior officer, he was in command of the ship even though he was asleep in his bunk. In light of the other findings, investigative reporter Greg Palast stated in 2008, "Forget the drunken skipper fable. As to Captain Joe Hazelwood, he was below decks, sleeping off his bender. At the helm, the third mate never would have collided with Bligh Reef had he looked at his RAYCAS radar.

But the radar was not turned on. In fact, the tanker's radar was left broken and disabled for more than a year before the disaster, and Exxon management knew it. It was [in Exxon's view] just too expensive to fix and operate."[17] Exxon blamed Captain Hazelwood for the grounding of the tanker.[16]

Other factors, according to an MIT course entitled "Software System Safety" by Professor Nancy G. Leveson,[18] included:

1. Tanker crews were not told that the previous practice of the Coast Guard tracking ships out to Bligh Reef had ceased.[19]
2. The oil industry promised, but never installed, state-of-the-art iceberg monitoring equipment.[20]
3. Exxon Valdez was sailing outside the normal sea lane to avoid small icebergs thought to be in the area.[20]
4. The 1989 tanker crew was half the size of the 1977 crew, worked 12–14 hour shifts, plus overtime. The crew was rushing to leave Valdez with a load of oil.[21]
5. Coast Guard tanker inspections in Valdez were not done, and the number of staff was reduced.[21]
6. Lack of available equipment and personnel hampered the spill cleanup.[19]

This disaster resulted in International Maritime Organization introducing comprehensive marine pollution prevention rules (MARPOL) through various conventions. The rules were ratified by member countries and, under International Ship Management rules, the ships are being operated with a common objective of "safer ships and cleaner oceans".[citation needed]

 

[Synthaholic]

The point is, it COULD happen. Amiright?

The same way shit COULD happen with hydraulic fracturing, or drilling ANWR or the eastern Gulf, or the OCS.

I've been listening to that argument for over 35 years. Because something COULD happen, ban the whole damn process.

Could happen, Kemo Sabe?

Fracking to blame? Texas rocked by 16 earthquakes in last 3 weeks ? RT USA

Texans angrily protest fracking after 30 earthquakes hit town ? RT USA

The fracking-earthquake connection | Dallas Morning News

Earthquake expert acknowledges fracking risks | Austin News & Weather | Austin Texas, Round Rock, TX | kxan.com

Fracking Practices to Blame for Ohio Earthquakes | LiveScience

Oklahoma:

Injection wells, or the actual fracturing process? That's the debate and the focus of investigation. And an inconsequential product of a highly successful endeavor IMO.

BTW... that's MISTER Kemo Sabe to you, bub!

Until the day that it becomes inconsequential, with a major earthquake that may do massive damage, or worse.

 

[Mr. H.]

Injection wells, or the actual fracturing process? That's the debate and the focus of investigation. And an inconsequential product of a highly successful endeavor IMO.

BTW... that's MISTER Kemo Sabe to you, bub!

Until the day that it becomes inconsequential, with a major earthquake that may do massive damage, or worse.[/QUOTE]

I don't think that's even scientifically possible. Again, these are minor seismic events and are associated with wastewater disposal not the act of hydraulic fracturing.
Texas alone has 10,000 such disposal wells.

If you want to see "massive damage", just look at agriculture. Yet we hear no calls for environmental justice in that regard.

Hmmm... I kinda screwed up that quote box LOL. Oh well trying to cut out the lengthy stuff.

 

[healthmyths]

The concept is "the lesser of two evils".
Canada is shipping one million barrels whether the pipeline is built or not!
So let's reduce the risks, i.e. not ship by 1 million barrel tankers at least from the dangerous NW Pacific and ship
via a pipeline that is far less dangerous AND we can at least recover some costs.. i.e. jobs, fees,taxes,etc?
Otherwise we'll have the expenses of clean up "Remember the Valdez!! " and nothing in the way of revenue!

The Valdez was human error.


Identified causes

Multiple factors have been identified as contributing to the incident:

• Exxon Shipping Company failed to supervise the master and provide a rested and sufficient crew for Exxon Valdez. The NTSB found this was widespread throughout the industry, prompting a safety recommendation to Exxon and to the industry.[15]
• The third mate failed to properly maneuver the vessel, possibly due to fatigue or excessive workload.[15]
• Exxon Shipping Company failed to properly maintain the Raytheon Collision Avoidance System (RAYCAS) radar, which, if functional, would have indicated to the third mate an impending collision with the Bligh Reef by detecting the "radar reflector", placed on the next rock inland from Bligh Reef for the purpose of keeping boats on course via radar.[16]

Captain Joseph Hazelwood, who was widely reported to have been drinking heavily that night, was not at the controls when the ship struck the reef. However, as the senior officer, he was in command of the ship even though he was asleep in his bunk. In light of the other findings, investigative reporter Greg Palast stated in 2008, "Forget the drunken skipper fable. As to Captain Joe Hazelwood, he was below decks, sleeping off his bender. At the helm, the third mate never would have collided with Bligh Reef had he looked at his RAYCAS radar.

But the radar was not turned on. In fact, the tanker's radar was left broken and disabled for more than a year before the disaster, and Exxon management knew it. It was [in Exxon's view] just too expensive to fix and operate."[17] Exxon blamed Captain Hazelwood for the grounding of the tanker.[16]

Other factors, according to an MIT course entitled "Software System Safety" by Professor Nancy G. Leveson,[18] included:

1. Tanker crews were not told that the previous practice of the Coast Guard tracking ships out to Bligh Reef had ceased.[19]
2. The oil industry promised, but never installed, state-of-the-art iceberg monitoring equipment.[20]
3. Exxon Valdez was sailing outside the normal sea lane to avoid small icebergs thought to be in the area.[20]
4. The 1989 tanker crew was half the size of the 1977 crew, worked 12–14 hour shifts, plus overtime. The crew was rushing to leave Valdez with a load of oil.[21]
5. Coast Guard tanker inspections in Valdez were not done, and the number of staff was reduced.[21]
6. Lack of available equipment and personnel hampered the spill cleanup.[19]

This disaster resulted in International Maritime Organization introducing comprehensive marine pollution prevention rules (MARPOL) through various conventions. The rules were ratified by member countries and, under International Ship Management rules, the ships are being operated with a common objective of "safer ships and cleaner oceans".[citation needed]

I agree! It was human error. An error to let a single person maneuver 1 million barrels on the open ocean.
NO question.

Now tell me again human error.
As you may not have seen this quote from a pipeline manager answering this question:
"Will the loss of 5,714 barrels a day through the 1% pinhole go undetected for 2 weeks."

"Ok. First, modern pipelines have more redundant protections on them than an airplane or spacecraft.
Part of that protection is the testing of the fabrication,
part of it is protective coatings,
part of it is an induced current for cathodic protection, and the monitoring can detect hundreds of barrels that go missing (even smaller if it happens quickly).
In other words, the situation you described would be detected within a couple of hours.

All of the recent leaks were in 40 to 70 year old pipe. This old pipe had lesser monitoring, old decayed coatings, and fewer tests of the fabrication.
The cathodic protection was retrofitted onto the system.
When the leaks are investigated, nearly all of them started at locations where a third party damaged the pipe coating, and didn't notify anyone. "

HUMAN ERROR.

Which would you prefer the "human error" to be the cause ??
pipelines carrying 700 barrels in one mile that if leaks are detected within hours and the pipeline shut down OR
human error in navigating in a storm 1 million barrels on the open ocean?

Again... why are you are against a risk of 700 barrels in one mile of pipe versus 1 million barrels traveling one mile on open ocean in a tanker with a human at the controls???

 

[tinydancer]

I am so tired but I still have the fight. lets rock it.