Is the Keystone cancelation a good thing?

Fogdog said:
I don't want that pipeline threatening our rivers, our sensitive areas and I don't want the pipeline builders to trample the sovereign rights of native americans on its way to enriching multinational oil companies. Simple as that.
Click to expand...
Nothing is simple. Native rights ain't that sovereign, if Biden did not win the pipeline would have gone through. A new pipe is safer than rail that passes over rivers, threatening the rivers, the sensitive areas, already moving the oil. The multinationals sell to other countries so you can buy your TV from China. It is called trade. And gives value to the American dollar. You already have a trade imbalance. And when it is all said and done it came down to politics, not science. The State Department gave it a green light way back when. The moved the pipe to alleviate the aquifer. I just hate to see the same oil move by rail. And it is not stopping because that would mean the major refineries shutting down. By your measure none of our development should have taken place. Take a cupboard wagon across the plains, leaving behind a patty or two. Our society comes with a cost, I realize that.
 
printer said:
Nothing is simple. Native rights ain't that sovereign, if Biden did not win the pipeline would have gone through. A new pipe is safer than rail that passes over rivers, threatening the rivers, the sensitive areas, already moving the oil. The multinationals sell to other countries so you can buy your TV from China. It is called trade. And gives value to the American dollar. You already have a trade imbalance. And when it is all said and done it came down to politics, not science. The State Department gave it a green light way back when. The moved the pipe to alleviate the aquifer. I just hate to see the same oil move by rail. And it is not stopping because that would mean the major refineries shutting down. By your measure none of our development should have taken place. Take a cupboard wagon across the plains, leaving behind a patty or two. Our society comes with a cost, I realize that.
Click to expand...
This is simple though.

Me no want Keystone Pipeline. Me happy Biden cancel.
 
The extension follows the Ogalala Aquifer that feeds America's breadbasket. As someone who has worked with farmers in SO DAK, Nebraska, and Kansas, they rely upon the water that lies in this vast underground lake. If tainted most farmers and ranchers in these regions would be out of business and we will see higher food costs.
 
Fogdog said:
This is simple though.

Me no want Keystone Pipeline. Me happy Biden cancel.
Click to expand...
I got that. So you are ok with the trains? Aw shucks, I already peeked behind the curtain for the answer. I guess I'll just have to wave as the trains run by.
 
franklinz said:
The extension follows the Ogalala Aquifer that feeds America's breadbasket. As someone who has worked with farmers in SO DAK, Nebraska, and Kansas, they rely upon the water that lies in this vast underground lake. If tainted most farmers and ranchers in these regions would be out of business and we will see higher food costs.
Click to expand...
A would agree with your sentiment. But darn it, a brand spanking new pipeline with no stress corrosion crack from pumping oil through them for 30 years seems pretty safe. Now all the other pipelines crossing the aquifer...

Keystone-XL-Ogallala-Map.jpg


1.jpg



They should have cut across in south Dakota and then follow the existing one.
 
printer said:
The fact is that 3 million barrels get to the Gulf at $10 a barrel surcharge than if it went by pipe. The pipeline company said it will popwer the pumps using renewable energy. The extra $10 a barrel buts, 2-3 US gallons of gas? Turning a turbine to make electricity, going by rail adds two gallons of fuel for every barrel, 800,000 barrels a day, so at two gallons that is 1,600,000 gallons of diesel up in the air every day. Even more now that they said they will pump with a net zero emissions.

Unlike many Republicans I have seen the climate get warmer than when I was a kid. The upper latitudes see the changes more. There is a creek a block from my house that I took a picture of ten years ago in February. The reason I took a picture of it was because there was a patch of open water. Never seen that before. We used to walk on it. Now there is not a month that it opens up, it freezes up again but there is no way you can walk on it. Crops we grow now here. Farmers growing corn! This year, the robins still have not flown south for winter. I do get the climate thing, the oceans absorbing the CO2 and getting more acidic. It won't make too much difference to my life, I have no kids to worry about. But I worry for my fellow man. I hope things change. But saying that, to me the pipeline makes sense, the oil is moving to the south anyway.
Click to expand...
you make really great points for Canada to pipe and refine their own oil in Canada. well said.
 
Fogdog said:
A green energy solution can be arrived at without inventing a completely new source of energy. Some say nuclear should be part of the solution and some say not. We can work a spreadsheet however we like. If one looks at the range of technology available right now, photo voltaic solar energy looks to be the dominant source of energy with wind, tidal and geothermal sources making up the balance. Whether or not nuclear is included seems to be a matter of the bias held by the author of the energy budget.

I'm all for investing in research for new sources. Fusion, hydrogen fuel cells, thorium reactors and so forth. None of which are ready for commercial use at this time or even the next ten years.
Click to expand...
Hydrogen is the answer.
 
rkymtnman said:
you make really great points for Canada to pipe and refine their own oil in Canada. well said.
Click to expand...
I would rather see the oil refined in Canada in northern Alberta and shipped out straight west to the coast. But a refinery is out of the question, the Chinese are the only ones able to afford one (And once they have their own financial crisis, heck, we won't go there.) and the best route out to tidewater would be straight west. But that was nixed because environmentalists thought two tankers a day was too much for the ocean life. The next best option was the Keystone route. As a third choice we have the route to Vancouver, that again the environmentalists do not want it because it doubles the tanker traffic.

I am a big proponent for leaving the oil in the ground everywhere and just used for products we make. For energy I want as many renewables as possible. Planes can use petroleum, no battery is going to get you across the Atlantic. I am still unsure of shipping, right now shipping is so cheap that we can ship Dollar Store items across the world. Chinese made cookies!!! With a tin for $2. That should not be. But the world is what it is and we will not be able to change it in five years, twenty-five if we try hard.

And that is why Keystone is the lightning rod it is. Not because of the risks, environmental experts said that they were doing things right, tunneling under rivers and using heavy wall pipe in sensitive areas, all the monitoring added. This is not the pipeline made in the 70's. But I would have gone a step further, costing more money and avoiding the aquifer and then run it down where the current pipe is. There might have been other concerns doing it that way that we don't hear about though. I used to work in a lab where we did corrosion testing of metals. So I get how pipes leak. I know how it is mitigated, read what the companies do to do it. I would not be concerned with it leaking but all the older pipes in use.

If the 800,000 did not leave and the refinery shut down then I would have little concern. But the refinery is not shutting down and the oil is getting there anyway. And it is putting tons of CO2 in the air moving it by rail.
 
rkymtnman said:
no offence, but that's a bullshit excuse.
Click to expand...
As I said, a 90,000 barrel refinery was 10 billion. You do get some savings by scaling it up but the oil going through the pipe is 10X that amount. And what investor is going to sink 60 billion into a refinery when you still do not have a pipeline to the coast? China is the only one with deep enough pockets and we already blocked them from getting more control of the industry here for national security reasons. We are OK with Americans owning our resources, not so much the Chinese.
 
printer said:
As I said, a 90,000 barrel refinery was 10 billion. You do get some savings by scaling it up but the oil going through the pipe is 10X that amount. And what investor is going to sink 60 billion into a refinery when you still do not have a pipeline to the coast? China is the only one with deep enough pockets and we already blocked them from getting more control of the industry here for national security reasons. We are OK with Americans owning our resources, not so much the Chinese.
Click to expand...
so it's settled then. Leave it in the ground and invest in better alternatives.
 
There is a small city in Central Oklahoma called Ponca City with a population of about 24,000 people. This small city is an epicenter for oil in the USA.

“The Ponca City Refinery processes a mixture of light, medium, and heavy crude oils. Most of the crude oil processed is received by pipeline from Oklahoma, Texas, and Canada. Infrastructure improvements have enabled the delivery of increased volumes of locally produced advantaged crude oil by pipeline and truck. The refinery is a high-conversion facility that produces a full range of products, including gasoline, diesel, aviation fuels, liquefied petroleum gas, and anode-grade petroleum coke. Its facilities include two fluid catalytic cracking units, alkylation, delayed coking, naphtha reforming, and hydrodesulfurization units. Finished petroleum products are shipped by truck, railcar, and pipelines to markets throughout the Midcontinent region.”

I can honestly tell you from working with the people of that city that a huge majority of the residents of that place have cancer , too many. I know first hand because I took care of them and provided cancer care to them. The numbers people with cancer in that town are incredible high , more so then any other place I have worked . The reason why is simple. It’s the environment impact of the oil refinery poisoning them. My patients even told me themselves.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top