Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 41
  1. #21
    Senior Member Platinum Poster
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    13,473

    Default Re: Keystone Pipeline...

    Ben, if you do some research on the proposals to build the Trans-Alaska Pipeline in the early 1970s, you will the same arguments used again and again. There are thousands of miles of pipelines in the US that you cannot see and which pose no problem to people, snail darters or tulips. Your govt has decided that hydrocarbons are going to remain the foundation of your energy needs, if you disagree with that then by all means campaign against the oil companies, but until alternative fuels are cheap, efficient, storable and have the industrial versatility of hydrocarbons, you are not going to get far. As I said before, by all means have an intelligent debate on fracking, as this is the key technology about which the scientific consensus is still in flux, not the pipelines.



  2. #22
    Platinum Poster Ben's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    11,509

    Default Re: Keystone Pipeline...

    Quote Originally Posted by Stavros View Post
    Ben, if you do some research on the proposals to build the Trans-Alaska Pipeline in the early 1970s, you will the same arguments used again and again. There are thousands of miles of pipelines in the US that you cannot see and which pose no problem to people, snail darters or tulips. Your govt has decided that hydrocarbons are going to remain the foundation of your energy needs, if you disagree with that then by all means campaign against the oil companies, but until alternative fuels are cheap, efficient, storable and have the industrial versatility of hydrocarbons, you are not going to get far. As I said before, by all means have an intelligent debate on fracking, as this is the key technology about which the scientific consensus is still in flux, not the pipelines.
    Well:








  3. #23
    Platinum Poster Ben's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    11,509

    Default Re: Keystone Pipeline...

    Quote Originally Posted by Stavros View Post
    Ben, if you do some research on the proposals to build the Trans-Alaska Pipeline in the early 1970s, you will the same arguments used again and again. There are thousands of miles of pipelines in the US that you cannot see and which pose no problem to people, snail darters or tulips. Your govt has decided that hydrocarbons are going to remain the foundation of your energy needs, if you disagree with that then by all means campaign against the oil companies, but until alternative fuels are cheap, efficient, storable and have the industrial versatility of hydrocarbons, you are not going to get far. As I said before, by all means have an intelligent debate on fracking, as this is the key technology about which the scientific consensus is still in flux, not the pipelines.
    Plus we shouldn't care about global climate change or air, water and soil pollution. I mean, who cares. I mean that's a rational approach. That you shouldn't care about anyone else.
    In a culture, a society, a system that rewards greediness and selfishness, well, it's completely understandable that people will become greedy and selfish and not really care about anyone else. That's the system, the culture we live in. The core of our society, corporations, are specifically set up that way.
    Plus in a so-called market system there are people that are not consenting to any of this. They are not consenting to global climate change, they are not consenting to water pollution or soil pollution or air pollution or deforestation or the general destruction of the environment.
    These people who aren't giving their consent to our destruction of the natural world are the unborn. Namely: future generations.
    Plus it's interesting that the economy comes first and the natural world, 30 million species [and we are but 1 of 30 million species on this planet] and future generations, well, play second fiddle.
    I just can't see how we can continue on and on and on with the general despoliation of the natural world.
    Maybe the American author Derrick Jensen is right. As he pointed out: We're fucked; we are so fucked.
    I mean, we can continue to plow ahead and ignore the overall impact on the natural world. We're living a pretty sordid planet for future generations.
    And all this is being lead by concentrated private capital. I mean, given the way corporations function the key element of the decision-makers is to maximize short-term profits and power and that leads directly to the destruction of the environment.



  4. #24
    Platinum Poster Ben's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    11,509

    Default Re: Keystone Pipeline...

    Shell Pipeline Oil Spill In Niger Delta Valley TWICE The Size Of BP Gulf Spill:




  5. #25
    Senior Member Platinum Poster
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    13,473

    Default Re: Keystone Pipeline...

    You missed the point Ben, caring about the environment does not mean not building pipelines, it means applying science properly to the extraction from underground of those things that make our lives comfortable, possible, extendable. There is a government in Nigeria, it isn't the fault of Shell if it doesn't distribute the national wealth in an equitable manner, preventing people from sabotaging pipelines and in the process causing damage to their own environmnent. Shell's record may not be 100% perfect, but the central government, the local people, gangsters, and political activists are not blame free either.



  6. #26
    Hung Angel Platinum Poster trish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    The United Fuckin' States of America
    Posts
    13,898

    Default Re: Keystone Pipeline...

    As everyone who opens this thread will already know, the Pegasus Pipeline carrying crude from the Bakken shale and tar sands sprung a leak last week in Mayflower, Arkansas. The clean up will take years and some neighborhoods of Mayflower will never be the same. The Pegasus is 65 years old and overdue for maintenance. Pundits supporting the oil industry have been quick to point out the XL-pipeline will be brand new and worry free.

    The U.S. is crisscrossed with oil pipelines. As long as we depend on fossil fuel for energy we will continue to live with the network and flow beneath our feet. To minimize the risks we of course need to be careful not to lay pipe uphill of aquifers. In the future fresh water will be even more important than energy. We can lay pipe but we have to do it smartly.

    But here’s the problem. In 65 years the XL-pipeline will be just as old as the Pegasus is now. The industry has shown us that the lust for quick profits will always takes precedence over maintaining infrastructure and adhering to safety standards. If I could be certain that politicians will allow government to create safe standards, regulate and police them; and if I could be certain that industry will readily comply, then I might be able with a clear conscious say, “Yeah, let’s go ahead with the XL.” (Of course I’m momentarily ignoring the implications for global climate change).

    Here’s the irony. It’s anti-government politicians and tea-baggers that seem to want this pipeline the most. They think oil companies should be able lay pipe where they please without government interference. But without government regulators with the power to force companies to maintain their pipelines, how can a reasonable person feel safe about his home and water supply? Government is an important part of the mix here. With it, I’d be more inclined to say yes to a given pipeline proposal. Without it, no way.

    http://insideclimatenews.org/news/20...-burst-pegasus
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	TheproblemwitholdpipespgraphicInsideClimateNewsapr2013_0.img_assist_custom-297x620.jpg 
Views:	117 
Size:	35.5 KB 
ID:	570229   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	canada-us oil pipeline map.jpg 
Views:	111 
Size:	152.1 KB 
ID:	570230  


    "...I no longer believe that people's secrets are defined and communicable, or their feelings full-blown and easy to recognize."_Alice Munro, Chaddeleys and Flemings.

    "...the order in creation which you see is that which you have put there, like a string in a maze, so that you shall not lose your way". _Judge Holden, Cormac McCarthy's, BLOOD MERIDIAN.

  7. #27
    Senior Member Veteran Poster
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    611

    Default Re: Keystone Pipeline...

    Quote Originally Posted by Stavros View Post
    You missed the point Ben, caring about the environment does not mean not building pipelines, it means applying science properly to the extraction from underground of those things that make our lives comfortable, possible, extendable. There is a government in Nigeria, it isn't the fault of Shell if it doesn't distribute the national wealth in an equitable manner, preventing people from sabotaging pipelines and in the process causing damage to their own environmnent. Shell's record may not be 100% perfect, but the central government, the local people, gangsters, and political activists are not blame free either.
    While the pipeline mishap in Nigeria may not be the most perfect example of the dangers of transporting crude oil but the greater imperative is just when is the US and China going to make any hard choices about fossil fuels.

    Cap and Trade was considered a viable and bi-partsain solution to closing the gap between cost effectiveness of renewables versus fossil fuel. And as late as 2008 there was tremendous momentum in the US to not just recognize climate change but begin to take action.

    And then those that will profit from ignoring the science found the boogie man in the form of the US's first African-American President and some how attached freedom to right of the Koch Brothers to profit at all costs to future generations and perhaps some already born generations.

    The answer is not to find dirty and dirtier fuel sources while heating the planet and destroying the water tables (fracking and tar oil) but creating a bridge plan. Cap and trade IMHO did this by creating economic incentives to move to alternatives. Not exactly total free market policy but it seems free market purity has never bothered a corporation receiving a bailout, a bloated no bid contract or exemption from prosecution.

    While the Keystone Pipeline may or may not be the place to end the madness at some point humans are going to have to stop putting the immediate economic gratification of the few above the lives of the many, born and unborn.

    FDR said this well when he said..."The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much it is whether we provide enough for those who have little."



  8. #28
    Senior Member Platinum Poster
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    13,473

    Default Re: Keystone Pipeline...

    This debate seems to be going round in circles. Yes, pipelines when they get old develop ageing problems that pose risks to people and the environment; most of the leaks in Alaska are caused by it -it is a common economic dilemma that as the production and profits from a reservoir decline the costs of maintenance increase and a choice is made to patch up rather than replace old plant. But given the profits being made and the potential for tax-breaks on overhauling it the Trans-Alaska Pipeline ought to be as good now as it was on day one. Prudhoe Bay alone has added 3 billion barrels of production in the last 10 years, which is equivalent to three Thunder Horses in the Gulf of Mexico at less cost per barrel than that offshore facility; the money is there.

    I think that is a fair case for all the pipelines -as far as I know you don't fly from LA to New York on an aeroplane that was built in 1970-75. It may also be the case that the costs of cleaning up a spill, combined with any genuine compensation costs incurred, may actually leave the companies worse off than if they had invested in upgrades on their installations.

    The longer term issue of hydrocarbons, as already stated is that as long as they are cheaper to access and process into usable commodities than alternative sources, and as long as the technological obstacles to mass-energy production and storage for renewables are not solved, hydrocarbons will dominate -a finite source that will have to be replaced and in some countries is already being eclipsed by renewables for a wide range of things such as transport and domestic energy use.

    Nevertheless, depending on which source you choose, the USA has a good record in the use of renewables, whereas another source claims that in Iceland and parts of Africa almost 100% of the energy use is from renewables, although it is stretching it a bit to compare the USA with Iceland and Lesotho. The differences are those of scale, and profit: and as long as hydrocarbons generate such vast profits, the gap will not be breached, and conventional sources of energy with all the problems that suggests, will remain.

    http://www.care2.com/causes/5-top-co...le-energy.html

    http://makewealthhistory.org/2012/07...ewable-energy/



  9. #29
    Senior Member Veteran Poster
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    611

    Default Re: Keystone Pipeline...

    Quote Originally Posted by Stavros View Post
    This debate seems to be going round in circles. Yes, pipelines when they get old develop ageing problems that pose risks to people and the environment; most of the leaks in Alaska are caused by it -it is a common economic dilemma that as the production and profits from a reservoir decline the costs of maintenance increase and a choice is made to patch up rather than replace old plant. But given the profits being made and the potential for tax-breaks on overhauling it the Trans-Alaska Pipeline ought to be as good now as it was on day one. Prudhoe Bay alone has added 3 billion barrels of production in the last 10 years, which is equivalent to three Thunder Horses in the Gulf of Mexico at less cost per barrel than that offshore facility; the money is there.

    I think that is a fair case for all the pipelines -as far as I know you don't fly from LA to New York on an aeroplane that was built in 1970-75. It may also be the case that the costs of cleaning up a spill, combined with any genuine compensation costs incurred, may actually leave the companies worse off than if they had invested in upgrades on their installations.

    The longer term issue of hydrocarbons, as already stated is that as long as they are cheaper to access and process into usable commodities than alternative sources, and as long as the technological obstacles to mass-energy production and storage for renewables are not solved, hydrocarbons will dominate -a finite source that will have to be replaced and in some countries is already being eclipsed by renewables for a wide range of things such as transport and domestic energy use.

    Nevertheless, depending on which source you choose, the USA has a good record in the use of renewables, whereas another source claims that in Iceland and parts of Africa almost 100% of the energy use is from renewables, although it is stretching it a bit to compare the USA with Iceland and Lesotho. The differences are those of scale, and profit: and as long as hydrocarbons generate such vast profits, the gap will not be breached, and conventional sources of energy with all the problems that suggests, will remain.

    http://www.care2.com/causes/5-top-co...le-energy.html

    http://makewealthhistory.org/2012/07...ewable-energy/
    Your argument seems largely based on the fact that the profit motive and immediate needs of humanity trump responsible management of the future of the planet.

    For most of mankind's history the great quest was to make the world better for the next generation and at some point that changed and mankind forgot about its children and the unborn. It is probably why US is decline.

    You maybe right about reality Stavros, but reality sucks and we could do better if we had the political courage and the willingness to see enemies that weren't humans with armies.

    Just my take



  10. #30
    Senior Member Platinum Poster
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    13,473

    Default Re: Keystone Pipeline...

    I don't understand how you can misunderstand my post, so I obviously need to re-do it

    Pipelines have been part of our industrial landscape for over 100 years during which time the technology has improved -I don't think Trish would deny that and the fact that pipeline technology is safe. My point, in case you didn't get it, is that pipelines, like aeroplanes, like ocean-going tankers, need to be maintained and at some point replaced, and as the companies with responsibility for oil and gas pipelines have substantial profits to fall back on, have to prove to me otherwise -'the money is there' as I said, which means the money is there to upgrade pipeline networks; it is hardly my fault if the same companies prefer to do something else with the profits they make.

    I also think re Fracking that some of the technical issues are sound, and some are not sound: it is driven by the geology which isn't the same across the USA or the world: and, as I think I said in a previous post somewhere, however alluring shale looks, the potential contamination of underground aquifers has not been eliminated; and it isn't clear how long wells last. And regardless of the accumulations in the USA or elsewhere, hydrocarbons are a finite resource and it is folly not to invest serious capital in the alternatives.



Similar Threads

  1. Why Obama is right about the Keystone XL pipeline project
    By Odelay in forum Politics and Religion
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 03-19-2012, 04:15 AM
  2. The Keystone Cops
    By hondarobot in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 08-30-2008, 07:10 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •