What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

The 114th Congress: How Low Can They Go?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: The 114th Congress: How Low Can They Go?

dxmnkd316 said:
Jeebus, all it sounds like is us taking on all of the risk of oil production and none of the benefits.
Click to expand...
The oil is still going to the Gulf, it's just going by railcar now.

While rail is fairly safe, pipelines have a better overall safety record. More importantly, coal cannot be shipped by pipeline, and a lot of our electric plants are running low on coal reserves here in the Midwest because oil has been occupying its space. Local news did a story on this a couple months ago, showing how at the begninning of the winter, local coal-fired plants have reserves that are five-stories high, but this year they're starting the winter with three-story high reserves; plant managers are worried about running out if it's a particularly harsh winter.

Simply put, we need the rail capacity for things other than Canadian oil.
 
Re: The 114th Congress: How Low Can They Go?

ScoobyDoo said:
What? You don't realize yet that the only infrastructure the GOP leadership cares about is this pipeline? Really, it's not that hard to figure out.
Click to expand...
My confusion was your lack of clarity in what you posted. GOP leadership hasn't had to weigh in on other infrastructure projects in the same way because Obama hasn't played political football with at least a lot of other infrastructure projects for six years.

If you're going to argue against Keystone, at least do something other than political sloganeering.
 
Re: The 114th Congress: How Low Can They Go?

WisconsinWildcard said:
Or the Keystone Pipeline that already exists.

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

I have not been convinced that we need two pipelines.
Click to expand...

Excuse me, I should have been more precise. The oil being shipped by rail is the oil that exceeds the current pipeline's capacity. That excess oil distribution has created real and urgent issues for Midwestern states due to the need of having electricity in our homes to operate our homes' heating systems.
 
Re: The 114th Congress: How Low Can They Go?

WisconsinWildcard said:
Or the Keystone Pipeline that already exists.

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

I have not been convinced that we need two pipelines.
Click to expand...
It's a shorter route with a larger diameter pipe. More efficient. And of course the flipside is that if the first one is ok, why do so many people have a hissy fit about the second one? And of course if the first one was sufficient, there wouldn't be a lot of this stuff still shipped by rail. As St. Clown notes, tying up the rail system to ship this is causing problems for other things that are shipped by rail, including, but not limited to coal for power plants.
 
Re: The 114th Congress: How Low Can They Go?

Bob Gray said:
My confusion was your lack of clarity in what you posted. GOP leadership hasn't had to weigh in on other infrastructure projects in the same way because Obama hasn't played political football with at least a lot of other infrastructure projects for six years.

If you're going to argue against Keystone, at least do something other than political sloganeering.
Click to expand...

Why are the standards I need to abide by higher than the Leaders of both Houses of the Legislative Branch of the Federal Government?
 
Re: The 114th Congress: How Low Can They Go?

Bob Gray said:
It's a shorter route with a larger diameter pipe. More efficient. And of course the flipside is that if the first one is ok, why do so many people have a hissy fit about the second one? And of course if the first one was sufficient, there wouldn't be a lot of this stuff still shipped by rail. As St. Clown notes, tying up the rail system to ship this is causing problems for other things that are shipped by rail, including, but not limited to coal for power plants.
Click to expand...

I understand it is more efficient. But I would argue that the first one is not ok. It had over 10 spills in the first year of operation. I quickly tried to find more current numbers but failed, maybe someone else can find the total spills thus far.

I am not easily swayed that the second pipeline would significantly reduce the shipping by rails. They are doing it now because there is money in it. I would assume they would continue to do so even after XL a little more than doubles the pipeline capacity (because it would likely still be profitable). I can say that instinctively, I do not want to expand tar sand extraction recklessly but I know that is a losing battle. Too much money at stake.
 
Re: The 114th Congress: How Low Can They Go?

WisconsinWildcard said:
I understand it is more efficient. But I would argue that the first one is not ok. It had over 10 spills in the first year of operation. I quickly tried to find more current numbers but failed, maybe someone else can find the total spills thus far.

I am not easily swayed that the second pipeline would significantly reduce the shipping by rails. They are doing it now because there is money in it. I would assume they would continue to do so even after XL a little more than doubles the pipeline capacity (because it would likely still be profitable). I can say that instinctively, I do not want to expand tar sand extraction recklessly but I know that is a losing battle. Too much money at stake.
Click to expand...
I'm sure shipping via pipeline is more cost effective that shipping by rail car. I don't even think it's close. They are going by rail car because right now they have no cheaper option. Pipelines do sometimes have the ability to expand via adding compression or looping (putting a second pipe in the same right of way). My first reaction is that the second pipe would likely meet demand for shipping capacity. If not, why wouldn't they have made the proposed second pipe with more capacity (bigger pipe, thicker walls to operate at higher pressure, etc.). But if not, I'd expect them to expand pipeline capacity further if necessary. Which would still be better than rail, if it were to ever materialize. Rail is a bad option all the way around for shipping oil. It's only used when other options aren't available.
 
Re: The 114th Congress: How Low Can They Go?

Bob Gray said:
Rail is a bad option all the way around for shipping oil. It's only used when other options aren't available.
Click to expand...

I agree with most of your post. I also agree that rail is a bad option. However, I would still argue that if it were profitable, it would still be utilized. I think we can assume that it is profitable (they are doing it now). Although I am no expert on the tar sands, from what I have heard, they are vast enough to produce an amount of product that the XL and the original pipeline have no chance in handling all of it.
 
Re: The 114th Congress: How Low Can They Go?

WisconsinWildcard said:
I agree with most of your post. I also agree that rail is a bad option. However, I would still argue that if it were profitable, it would still be utilized. I think we can assume that it is profitable (they are doing it now). Although I am no expert on the tar sands, from what I have heard, they are vast enough to produce an amount of product that the XL and the original pipeline have no chance in handling all of it.
Click to expand...

Its still going to go by rail, it goes from ND to New Brunswick to Irvings refinery. That refinery is set up for North Shore Crude and I guess the Shale oil is similar
 
Re: The 114th Congress: How Low Can They Go?

Still no answer to number of spills that occurred the first year and after.
 
Re: The 114th Congress: How Low Can They Go?

FactCheck.org
Pipelines can be hazardous. An average of 97,376 barrels (4.1 million gallons) of petroleum and other “hazardous liquids” have been spilled each year in pipeline incidents over the last decade, according to the Department of Transportation’s Pipeline & Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. These incidents have claimed an average of two lives per year, and resulted in more than $263 million in annual reported property damage as well.

Those figures include the most expensive onshore oil pipeline spill in U.S. history, caused when 30-inch pipe operated by Enbridge ruptured on July 26, 2010, near Marshall, Mich. That dumped more than 1 million gallons of Canadian diluted bitumen — the same material that would be carried in the proposed 36-inch Keystone pipeline — into the Kalamazoo River. Enbridge is still struggling to complete the cleanup, having failed to meet a Dec. 31 Environmental Protection Agency deadline for dredging remaining oil residue that settled on the bottom of the river. Although Enbridge initially put the spill at about 840,000 gallons, the EPA said last year that 1.15 million gallons had been recovered and 350,000 cubic yards of contaminated river sediment remained to be recovered. Enbridge said in August 2013 that it had spent more than $1 billion on the cleanup and remediation to date, and the figure continues to rise.

A spill from the Keystone could potentially have similar effects. The Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality, in its final evaluation report on the project, found that the properties of the diluted forms of bitumen that would flow through the state in the Keystone pipeline “are similar in many respects to other heavy sour crude oils.” For what it’s worth, TransCanada says it plans to make the Keystone “the safest pipeline ever constructed in the U.S.,” adding more remote shut-off valves and inspections and burying the pipe more deeply than with other pipelines.
Click to expand...

Fox News

Current Keystone Pipeline Leaked 12 Times in Last Year

The pipeline that the Obama administration has rejected the permit for would be an extension of a pipeline that has already leaked -- not just once, but 12 times in the last year.

While TransCanada tried to dismiss these leaks as “minor” averaging “just five to 10 gallons of oil” each, the leak on May 7, 2011 near Millner, N.D., spilled about 21,000 gallons of oil in total.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top