Jump to content
Paulding.com

Keystone pipeline defeated


Recommended Posts

No, it only moves crude oil. As will the Keystone Pipeline, as shown on their web site: http://keystone-xl.com/about/the-keystone-xl-oil-pipeline-project/

 

As I'm learning, extracting oil from tar sands is done pretty much on site (either by mining, or hauling the sands to an extraction plant nearby). The only thing transported via the Keystone Pipeline will be crude oil and bitumen which has been diluted with lighter oils: http://keystone-xl.com/does-the-oil-to-be-shipped-on-keystone-xl-contain-benzene-what-chemicals-are-added/

 

Here's another piece on transporting heavy crude oil and bitumen: http://www.centreforenergy.com/AboutEnergy/ONG/OilsandsHeavyOil/Overview.asp?page=11

 

Here's an excellent piece from the Encyclopedia Brittanica about what bitumen is and what it's used for: FTA: By far most refined bitumen is used in paving asphalt and roofing tiles, as is a large amount of natural bitumen. However, most of the bitumen extracted from Canada’s oil sands is upgraded into synthetic crude oil and sent to refineries for conversion into a full range of petroleum products, including gasoline.

The question concerning benzene is not found on your link. http://keystone-xl.com/does-the-oil-to-be-shipped-on-keystone-xl-contain-benzene-what-chemicals-are-added/%C2%A0

 

If you folks don't care about the environmental impact that's fine. I have questions about the by products created to refine this fuel.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sand tar is a filthy source and I don't agree with transporting it over our country. Until I find out where it is going to be refined and what is going to happen to all the by products of this filthy fuel my opinion will remain unchanged.

 

The fact that you are not questioning this is sad.

 

All oil is a filthy source, by definition. In looking at several web sites, the main complain appears to be destruction of the environment in Canada (not our problem), energy used to extract it, possible contamination of freshwater supplies in the US, and increase pollution at refineries at the Gulf Coast. http://www.nrdc.org/energy/dirtyfuels_tar.asp

 

Starting with the last and going backward, we already have regulations in place to prevent undue pollution in such areas by such facilities. RE: contamination of water - the Alaska Pipeline was built in the 70s and while there have been a few leaks, they have greatly improved technology to alarm when there is a leak, and to seal it off. I can't help but think that technology today would be vastly improved. RE: energy used to extract it - well, that's a philosophical argument on which we shall have to agree to disagree. RE: Canada's environment at the mining sites - as this study shows, the land will eventually be reclaimed after the mining process moves on, and the local environmental impact in Canada is minimally adverse: http://www.ianas.org/books/Environmental_and_health_impacts_of_canadas_oil_sands%20Industry.pdf

 

This report is from 2010, so again, I should think Canada would have made a lot of progress on the issues that were raised.

Edited by mei lan
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

OMG, you do research? :db:

 

I am a nerd. I cannot help myself. :blush:

The question concerning benzene is not found on your link. http://keystone-xl.com/does-the-oil-to-be-shipped-on-keystone-xl-contain-benzene-what-chemicals-are-added/%C2%A0

 

If you folks don't care about the environmental impact that's fine. I have questions about the by products created to refine this fuel.

 

I don't know what happened to that link, but here it is again, and the benzene issue is addressed: http://keystone-xl.com/does-the-oil-to-be-shipped-on-keystone-xl-contain-benzene-what-chemicals-are-added/ From what I can gather, the amount of benzene in the pipeline will be less than in gasoline or diesel pipelines.

Edited by mei lan
Link to post
Share on other sites

I would rather see the money and resources pointed at a cleaner, self sustainable, energy source. I know I'm spitting in the wind because some of you would rather focus on oil.

 

Well, I won't disagree with you about the need for a clean, self-sustainable energy source. I would have thought any number of them would have been developed by now. However, the fact remains that the US operates in a free-market economy, and apparently the demand for such energy has not been enough to incentivize (is that even a word?) companies to put the resources to it. You KNOW solar and wind and other sustainable energy sources can be produced, but for some reason, the cost-effectiveness of doing same hasn't been figured out yet. This has NOT been helped by the government shoveling millions and millions of dollars into failed companies like Solyndra, et al, with the latest being whatever that thing is in the Mojave Desert not producing like they said it would. Wind farms are not doing the job as well. Necessity is the mother of invention, and the bottom line is that we haven't needed the alternate energy sources enough to figure them out.

 

On Dirty Jobs once, there was a farmer who had a dairy farm and he used the methane from the cow manure to manufacture the energy the farm used. Now THAT is innovation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sand tar is a filthy source and I don't agree with transporting it over our country. Until I find out where it is going to be refined and what is going to happen to all the by products of this filthy fuel my opinion will remain unchanged.

 

The fact that you are not questioning this is sad.

 

 

"The bottom line, crude oil pipelines are the most energy efficient, safest and least impactful on the environment

compared to alternative transportation modes. That is why about 80% of all crude and petroleum oil are routinely

transported via pipelines within the continental U.S. today."

 

 

http://theenergycollective.com/jemillerep/270736/benefits-blocking-keystone-xl-pipeline-facts-or-myths

 

 

8)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would rather see the money and resources pointed at a cleaner, self sustainable, energy source. I know I'm spitting in the wind because some of you would rather focus on oil.

 

 

"Fossil fuels are the foundation of the modern economy. They give us heat, light, food,

technology, and transportation. They make possible travel, education, and medicine,

among an endless parade of things that even their discontents cannot live without."

 

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/392962/whence-keystone-comes-charles-c-w-cooke/page/0/4

 

 

 

8)

Link to post
Share on other sites

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

 

So you want to discredit the link source. That's fine. Let me ask someone who protests the Paulding airport but would not have a problem with a portion of the Keystone pipeline running through their property. That would be you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If you are, in fact, "Tired of BS", why do you post so much of it? :crazy:

I was thinking the same thing.

 

 

"Fossil fuels are the foundation of the modern economy. They give us heat, light, food,

technology, and transportation. They make possible travel, education, and medicine,

among an endless parade of things that even their discontents cannot live without."

 

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/392962/whence-keystone-comes-charles-c-w-cooke/page/0/4

 

 

 

8)

Don't forget all those things made of plastic in people's homes. Plastic is an oil product.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are, in fact, "Tired of BS", why do you post so much of it? :crazy:

I was thinking the same thing.

Don't forget all those things made of plastic in people's homes. Plastic is an oil product.

Do either of you have a comment on the subject at hand? I mean other than what you posted.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So you want to discredit the link source. That's fine. Let me ask someone who protests the Paulding airport but would not have a problem with a portion of the Keystone pipeline running through their property. That would be you.

I think it's time for you to be quiet about the pipeline for the simple fact that you don't know what you are talking about.

The news really has you wrapped around their fingers. If it's on the net, comes from TV news, it must be true....LMBO!!!!

 

On another fact, thank you for the laugh on the link you posted. You have to be very gullible, naïve, to believe anything from wikipedi, when people can edit anything on there.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

IF you're going to talk the talk, you should walk the walk. Don't support the pipeline? Don't use fossil fuels. Want illegals to break the laws and stay in the U.S., put YOUR money where your mouth is, completely sponsor one family. Love Obamacare, don't accept a dime in subsidies. I don't know of one thing that the left wants that will help me keep my dime in my pocket but will take my dime and give it to someone else.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Some more information about the reality of this pipeline. Of course these people don't depend on the pipeline for their income.

 

http://www.foe.org/projects/climate-and-energy/tar-sands/keystone-xl-pipeline

Now that right there was funny as hell I tell you. What did you think an environmentalist group that opposes any oil production would say?

Link to post
Share on other sites

So you want to discredit the link source. That's fine. Let me ask someone who protests the Paulding airport but would not have a problem with a portion of the Keystone pipeline running through their property. That would be you.

 

I am in opposition to the airport expansion and I would be in favor of the pipeline running through my property (all other things being equal). HOWEVER, the REASON I am opposed to the airport expansion is the high-handed way they've done things and not explained things, etc. If somebody would explain to me in a clear and concise manner the benefits and goals of the airport expansion, and would discuss concerns rationally, my mind might could be changed. But as it is, I remain opposed simply because the PTB have run roughshod over the people's rights in Paulding County.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some more information about the reality of this pipeline. Of course these people don't depend on the pipeline for their income.

 

http://www.foe.org/projects/climate-and-energy/tar-sands/keystone-xl-pipeline

 

Most of the concerns at that link are about the extraction process and whether it should happen, etc. This is in Canada and doesn't really affect us. The pipeline will forward no matter what - if not through the US to the Gulf of Mexico, then across Canada to New Brunswick. The other major source of tar sands is in eastern Utah and is not being extracted, nor could I find any plans to extract from Utah. I was in eastern Utah a couple of years ago, and you cannot throw a stick and miss regular oil wells...ALL OVER.

 

The only issue I see that is a real concern is the possibility of a leak along the pipeline. (The Oglalla Aquifer concern has been negated because the company changed the route to avoid it.) The site mentions a 2013 leak in Arkansas and a 2010 leak in Michigan. The Arkansas leak was 5,000-7,000 gallons; the Michigan leak was 877,000-1,000,000 gallons. The Arkansas leak was caught quicker and cleaned up quicker. The Michigan leak was noted in Edmonton at HQ, but 18 hours went by before anybody sounded an alarm. The Michigan leak also heavily contaminated 25 miles of the Kalamazoo River; took 2+ years for cleanup, which included dredging the river in that area. I don't know the answer to this - it seems to me that the risk is fairly low, considering new technology and considering how many linear miles of pipeline traverse the US. Also, even in the BP Gulf spill, cleanup was faster than expected, and damage to the immediate environment was less than expected (apparently oysters were the worst affected because they couldn't move to get out of the way of the oil). http://www.nola.com/environment/index.ssf/2014/01/bp_deepwater_horizon_oil_spill_1.html

 

By far, IMHO, the worst effect of that spill was the loss of 11 ilves on the oil rig. I will also say that the cleanup efforts were excellent, IMHO, by BP (who had major incentive to clean it up) and by other groups as well.

 

Interestingly, Bloomberg News reports that the Keystone Pipeline is in more danger from cheap oil from regular sources than from environmental concerns. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-10-08/who-needs-keystone-with-oil-prices-like-these-.html

Edited by mei lan
Link to post
Share on other sites

IF you're going to talk the talk, you should walk the walk. 

 

I agree ... although it may be moot; at least as long as the oil price remains under about $70/bbl as tar-sand sourced oil is not feasible at that rate.

 

However, when it comes to talking talk and actually walking, I have to assume that you are foursquare in favor of the exercise of imminent domain in furtherance of private economic development.  Yep, this project actually fails without the exercise of eminent domain as not every landowner whose property will be used wants to participate.

 

So, when I look back, I see folks like mrshoward being against the use of eminent domain for private development and in support of laws that would prevent it, such as this posting from 2006:

 

 

As I understand it, this bill allows developers to condem your property

based on a loose definition of public good...( more tax revenue?)

 

This is happening all over the country, citizens' private property is being

condemed to make way for new more propfitable developments that boost counties'

tax revenue...

 

To anyone who knows more about this Bill please inform us

as I am still searching for more info...

 

What do you think; should developers have right to take your property

through "eminent domain"???

 

Call or write you legislator NOW!

 

you are aware, mrshoward, that this 'foreign company' that owns the tar-sand oil in Canada are the folks behind building the pipeline that will force landowners to have to give up their land to make this profit making venture more profitable for the foreign company and you're backing the foreign company using the federal government to take people's property for their profit.

 

Considering your 'principled' stand against here in the case of the airport, in the case of the Atlanta I-75 toll road by pass, I've got to think you'd walk away from the Keystone XL pipeline based on this principle ... because you walk the walk.

 

Oh wait ... you don't and neither do the honorable, principled men mocked for their honor and principle in this Daily Show expose:

 

We all know that the break-even cost of the tarsand oil here will include what ever level of efficiency that is established for its transport and development.  Hence, if we build the pipeline, this becomes oil that will be mined and produced when the market price of oil is $80/bbl.  If by not building the pipeline, the price point that this oil is developed becomes $110/bbl, then it no doubt will be happy to sit in the crust of the earth until then.

 

Bottom line, we as a people are not particularly invested in building and paying for a pipeline and taking away private property of others to do so, so that they can make an extra $30/bbl when it becomes feasible to mine the resource.

 

The point, I'm not willing to compromise your principles on eminent domain to make this foreign oil company extra money by ceding to them a pipeline build even a degree with public funds.

 

That said, if you want to deal for a $12 minimum wage or maybe restoration of $800 million in food stamps that were cut or, heck, maybe even comprehensive immigration reform ... we can talk.  That is real compromise ... not the unholy compromise you made with your principles in supporting eminent domain in this case but rejecting it in others.

 

pubby

Link to post
Share on other sites

I see the two examples of eminent domain differently - with the toll road, that property and the use thereof is gone; with the pipeline, once construction is finished, the property is still there for use above-ground (as I understand it). If that is not true, then I would have some hesitations until I got those concerns addressed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I see the two examples of eminent domain differently - with the toll road, that property and the use thereof is gone; with the pipeline, once construction is finished, the property is still there for use above-ground (as I understand it). If that is not true, then I would have some hesitations until I got those concerns addressed.

 

You surely can't build a house on it.

 

If it blows a gasket, you can't take back the pollution ... you may be able to mitigate it and clean it up somewhat, but, to offer an example, if you had a pet buffalo (or dog) that was caught up in it and died as a result, it won't come back to life. Heck, if one of the workers building the thing run over your dog or let you cattle loose or even smash into the tree your great grandmother planted because he was drunk and killed the tree ... it is not coming back. It is change and that is the essence of eminent domain - enforced change dictated by the state to enrich a private entity assuring you only what 'they' think your property is worth. (If they didn't have eminent domain, they could proceed and everyone would a mutually agreed upon fair market price - not one defined by the appraiser appointed by the state who is paid to lowball you.)

 

The process is inherently unfair, particularly when the funding agent for the condemnation is a private entity who has the political clout to get the state to do their dirty work - i.e. take peoples property.

 

pubby

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You surely can't build a house on it.

 

If it blows a gasket, you can't take back the pollution ... you may be able to mitigate it and clean it up somewhat, but, to offer an example, if you had a pet buffalo (or dog) that was caught up in it and died as a result, it won't come back to life. Heck, if one of the workers building the thing run over your dog or let you cattle loose or even smash into the tree your great grandmother planted because he was drunk and killed the tree ... it is not coming back. It is change and that is the essence of eminent domain - enforced change dictated by the state to enrich a private entity assuring you only what 'they' think your property is worth. (If they didn't have eminent domain, they could proceed and everyone would a mutually agreed upon fair market price - not one defined by the appraiser appointed by the state who is paid to lowball you.)

 

The process is inherently unfair, particularly when the funding agent for the condemnation is a private entity who has the political clout to get the state to do their dirty work - i.e. take peoples property.

 

pubby

 

You are correct; I was thinking of larger parcels of property that run through farms/pastures/etc. And for the record, I am NOT in favor of eminent domain vis a vis private development. I think the Kelo decision was one of the worst SCOTUS has ever handed down.

Link to post
Share on other sites
×
×
  • Create New...