Keystoned? Exxon under fire as 10k barrels of oil spills on streets, floods Arkansas

[Darwin333]

Is that one of the purposes of the new pipeline? If so I'd like a source for that info if you don't mind.

The purpose for the new pipeline is to have a pipeline that can carry the Canadian Sand Tar oil to market. Right now they have no other method but the pipeline that just busted a leak or rail (which is absurdly more expensive and inefficient).

Regardless, if they can't build new pipelines or they perceive that building new pipelines will be a huge and unnecessarily high cost they will simply plan on using the existing infrastructure instead of designing and building new and better infrastructure. 1 + 1=2 all day long.

As far as proof, just read the design proposals from TransCanada.

 

[ivwshane]

The purpose for the new pipeline is to have a pipeline that can carry the Canadian Sand Tar oil to market. Right now they have no other method but the pipeline that just busted a leak or rail (which is absurdly more expensive and inefficient).

Regardless, if they can't build new pipelines or they perceive that building new pipelines will be a huge and unnecessarily high cost they will simply plan on using the existing infrastructure instead of designing and building new and better infrastructure. 1 + 1=2 all day long.

As far as proof, just read the design proposals from TransCanada.

You made the statement that the new pipeline will replace some of the older pipeline, that is either true or not, the burden is on you to prove it. If it's true then having updated pipes and replacing a potential time bombs is a benefit to the people that might be affected. If it's not true then why do you continue to make such false statements?

Just because the pipeline will make it cheaper to transport oil has absolutely nothing to do with me or anyone that will be living close to it and is a piss poor argument to make when the negative impacts could actually affect those that live close to it.

 

[HomerJS]

The purpose for the new pipeline is to have a pipeline that can carry the Canadian Sand Tar oil to market. Right now they have no other method but the pipeline that just busted a leak or rail (which is absurdly more expensive and inefficient).

Regardless, if they can't build new pipelines or they perceive that building new pipelines will be a huge and unnecessarily high cost they will simply plan on using the existing infrastructure instead of designing and building new and better infrastructure. 1 + 1=2 all day long.

As far as proof, just read the design proposals from TransCanada.

I would be a little more receptive to the KP if the oil companies put effort into improving cleanup methods like they put into drilling and transport.

Cleanup technologies haven't changed much in over 40 years yet check out drilling advancements in that same time period.

 

[monovillage]

I would be a little more receptive to the KP if the oil companies put effort into improving cleanup methods like they put into drilling and transport.

Cleanup technologies haven't changed much in over 40 years yet check out drilling advancements in that same time period.

That's because they try to put the technology into preventing cleanups at all. New pipelines have new technology for monitoring and preventing large scale spills that the old ones lack. Just look at the difference between a car built in 1947 and a car built in 2012, that's the type of differences you see in pipeline technology.
http://www.pipeline101.com/index.html

 

[HomerJS]

That's because they try to put the technology into preventing cleanups at all. New pipelines have new technology for monitoring and preventing large scale spills that the old ones lack. Just look at the difference between a car built in 1947 and a car built in 2012, that's the type of differences you see in pipeline technology.
http://www.pipeline101.com/index.html

Ok, but when there is a spill they pull out the 40 year old boom. That tar sands spill in Michgan still isn't cleaned up after 2 years.

 

[mwilliams8705]

Ok, but when there is a spill they pull out the 40 year old boom. That tar sands spill in Michgan still isn't cleaned up after 2 years.

Really? Can you post links?

I know the gulf is cleaned up.

 

[ivwshane]

Really? Can you post links?

I know the gulf is cleaned up.

http://www.michiganradio.org/term/kalamazoo-river-oil-spill

 

[mwilliams8705]

http://www.michiganradio.org/term/kalamazoo-river-oil-spill

So...the company thought it was done, but the EPA wants more dredging for oil?

Okay.

Still doesn't mean that we should halt all progress on preventing spills in the first place and that oil is what drives this country.

 

[ivwshane]

So...the company thought it was done, but the EPA wants more dredging for oil?

Okay.

Still doesn't mean that we should halt all progress on preventing spills in the first place and that oil is what drives this country.

Who is halting progress? Who is proposing halting progress.

If anything I'd say hay is what drives this country, with all the straw men argument people keep throwing around it would seem hay is our number one resource!

 

[mwilliams8705]

Who is halting progress? Who is proposing halting progress.

If anything I'd say hay is what drives this country, with all the straw men argument people keep throwing around it would seem hay is our number one resource!

It is clear you don't want pipelines in general, so how will this country get oil to power the economy?

 

[monovillage]

Who is halting progress?

Obama is, when for political reasons he halted the Keystone XL pipeline.

Who is proposing halting progress.

Every extreme eco-kook group.

If anything I'd say hay is what drives this country, with all the straw men argument people keep throwing around it would seem hay is our number one resource!

No, they use hay in booms to soak up spilled oil that old technology causes and it's caused by those same eco-kooks because they won't permit changes in the pipelines.

 

[ivwshane]

It is clear you don't want pipelines in general, so how will this country get oil to power the economy?

Another straw man. No I'm for things that are well thought out and plan for the worst and have the least impact on daily life as well as if something does go wrong. I also believe in fixing what is broke or removing it all together. More importantly I believe if government or the people are going to give up something (money, land, etc) that it should be for things that will advance this country and solve problems, not prolong them.

Obama is, when for political reasons he halted the Keystone XL pipeline.


Every extreme eco-kook group.



No, they use hay in booms to soak up spilled oil that old technology causes and it's caused by those same eco-kooks because they won't permit changes in the pipelines.

Extreme kooks have no more say in the process than you or I and Obama hasn't said no to the project he has just asked for better plans.

Are you in a hurry to get these pipes built, is the companies profit a concern for you? Or do you not care, except for political reasons, because it doesn't affect you?

 

[nehalem256]

Extreme kooks have no more say in the process than you or I and Obama hasn't said no to the project he has just asked for better plans.

Are you in a hurry to get these pipes built, is the companies profit a concern for you? Or do you not care, except for political reasons, because it doesn't affect you?

You don't think the fact that it takes 5+ years to decide where(if?) to build an oil pipeline is indicative of serious issues which are detrimental to the economy?

 

[ivwshane]

You don't think the fact that it takes 5+ years to decide where(if?) to build an oil pipeline is indicative of serious issues which are detrimental to the economy?

There is no set time frame where enough time passes the same plans will be better. If it takes 100 years to get good planning then so be it, if good planning only takes a year then fine. The key is good planning, our economy isn't so weak that one pipeline would help or hurt us.

 

[mwilliams8705]

Another straw man. No I'm for things that are well thought out and plan for the worst and have the least impact on daily life as well as if something does go wrong. I also believe in fixing what is broke or removing it all together. More importantly I believe if government or the people are going to give up something (money, land, etc) that it should be for things that will advance this country and solve problems, not prolong them.

You plan for the worst and nothing will get done because there is risk in everything.

Pipelines have the least impact on daily life considering how many there are operating RIGHT NOW. They are also drive down the cost of oil and hate to tell you, but this country runs on oil and will for a while until something cheaper is developed. Why you don't want cheaper oil, ability to refine and sell it on our markets and abroad is confusing.

What is broke and needs removing exactly?

What is advancing this country and what problems exist that prolongs them?

 

[ivwshane]

You plan for the worst and nothing will get done because there is risk in everything.

Pipelines have the least impact on daily life considering how many there are operating RIGHT NOW. They are also drive down the cost of oil and hate to tell you, but this country runs on oil and will for a while until something cheaper is developed. Why you don't want cheaper oil, ability to refine and sell it on our markets and abroad is confusing.

What is broke and needs removing exactly?

What is advancing this country and what problems exist that prolongs them?

I'm sorry but your post history has proven that you don't use facts to come to your conclusions so I don't believe anything you said.

First, show me impact studies on the pipeline that validate your point. Next show me studies that show the price of oil will go down with these pipes.
And if you aren't aware of what pipes are broken then I suggest you re read this thread.

The long term problems are an economy that is impacted by oil prices and a depleting energy source and an environmental impact from its use.

 

[nehalem256]

There is no set time frame where enough time passes the same plans will be better. If it takes 100 years to get good planning then so be it, if good planning only takes a year then fine. The key is good planning, our economy isn't so weak that one pipeline would help or hurt us.

So you really think this is the only pipeline (or other project) whose construction is delayed for large amounts of time?

 

[mwilliams8705]

I'm sorry but your post history has proven that you don't use facts to come to your conclusions so I don't believe anything you said.

First, show me impact studies on the pipeline that validate your point. Next show me studies that show the price of oil will go down with these pipes.
And if you aren't aware of what pipes are broken then I suggest you re read this thread.

The long term problems are an economy that is impacted by oil prices and a depleting energy source and an environmental impact from its use.

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

I'll tell you how it works. Right now oil sands are now being transported to refineries by truck, ship and train. This adds to the costs. It is cheaper in the long run to have the initial investment of building a pipeline to reduce transportation costs to refineries.The pipeline should bring about 500,000 gallons into the USA market and according to U.S. Energy Information Administration which would probably reduce costs of 3 cents a gallon compared to shipping it from overseas.

If they do break, do you not think it is incentive for the companies to clean it up or risk being fined? Do you not think it is an incentive to lose money through broken pipes?

The thing is oil is cheaper than solar and wind which is probably what you are advocating for. Now should there be alternative forms of energy? Of course. But just because you think that it is hurting the environment, which it is but not at the magnitude that alarmists point it out to be, than you are actively trying to raise prices on energy and dampening the economy. I think there should be more nuclear plants and would decrease energy costs even further, but it is too taboo for environmentalists, despite being on of the cleanest if handled correctly and not built on a coast or fault line.

 

[ivwshane]

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

I'll tell you how it works. Right now oil sands are now being transported to refineries by truck, ship and train. This adds to the costs. It is cheaper in the long run to have the initial investment of building a pipeline to reduce transportation costs to refineries.The pipeline should bring about 500,000 gallons into the USA market and according to U.S. Energy Information Administration which would probably reduce costs of 3 cents a gallon compared to shipping it from overseas.

If they do break, do you not think it is incentive for the companies to clean it up or risk being fined? Do you not think it is an incentive to lose money through broken pipes?

The thing is oil is cheaper than solar and wind which is probably what you are advocating for. Now should there be alternative forms of energy? Of course. But just because you think that it is hurting the environment, which it is but not at the magnitude that alarmists point it out to be, than you are actively trying to raise prices on energy and dampening the economy. I think there should be more nuclear plants and would decrease energy costs even further, but it is too taboo for environmentalists, despite being on of the cleanest if handled correctly and not built on a coast or fault line.

A) you still haven't shown a source that says oil prices would drop.

B) it should be obvious to you if you read this thread that there isn't an incentive to fix things before they are broken, in fact that should be completely obvious if you had been following the causes of the gulf oil spill.

 

[monovillage]

A) you still haven't shown a source that says oil prices would drop.

B) it should be obvious to you if you read this thread that there isn't an incentive to fix things before they are broken, in fact that should be completely obvious if you had been following the causes of the gulf oil spill.

You never back anything you say with facts, why should anyone else do it for you ?

 

[ivwshane]

You never back anything you say with facts, why should anyone else do it for you ?

Really? And what post are you referring to that you would like to see facts?

 

[mwilliams8705]

A) you still haven't shown a source that says oil prices would drop.

B) it should be obvious to you if you read this thread that there isn't an incentive to fix things before they are broken, in fact that should be completely obvious if you had been following the causes of the gulf oil spill.

http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/steo/uncertainty/pdf/dec12_uncertainty.pdf

A)There is a transportation bottle neck. The EIA says it itself. By relieving some of those pressures you will see prices go down as more is getting to refineries and the expansions in Houston are completed(not listed but refining capacity is going to expand to help process Canadian tar sands and to help process oil from the Eagle Ford Shale)

B)A catastrophic failure from two fail safes and billions paid out in clean up will make BP stringent on off shore drilling, as it is already. Taking a billions in profit hit makes things a great motivator to keep things going. Also, how is the gulf now?

 

[ivwshane]

http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/steo/uncertainty/pdf/dec12_uncertainty.pdf

A)There is a transportation bottle neck. The EIA says it itself. By relieving some of those pressures you will see prices go down as more is getting to refineries and the expansions in Houston are completed(not listed but refining capacity is going to expand to help process Canadian tar sands and to help process oil from the Eagle Ford Shale)

B)A catastrophic failure from two fail safes and billions paid out in clean up will make BP stringent on off shore drilling, as it is already. Taking a billions in profit hit makes things a great motivator to keep things going. Also, how is the gulf now?

The provided link (unless I missed it) doesn't say anything about the pipeline lowering prices. It's a myth, oil is traded on the global market a little pipeline isn't going to change anything.

Regarding B, that's wishful thinking and history has yet to prove you right. In fact a part of the pipeline that recently leaked was previously cited for not meeting standards and it wasnt fixed. The fine these oil companies have to pay is a drop in the bucket and it's cheaper to pay the fine than to fix it, let alone be proactive about repairs.

 

[mwilliams8705]

The provided link (unless I missed it) doesn't say anything about the pipeline lowering prices. It's a myth, oil is traded on the global market a little pipeline isn't going to change anything.

Regarding B, that's wishful thinking and history has yet to prove you right. In fact a part of the pipeline that recently leaked was previously cited for not meeting standards and it wasnt fixed. The fine these oil companies have to pay is a drop in the bucket and it's cheaper to pay the fine than to fix it, let alone be proactive about repairs.

You really aren't that smart are you?
A pipeline is cheaper than paying companies to move crude to refineries through truck, ship and train. if it wasn't they wouldn't be building them because that's how you run a business, you try to cut costs to increase profits and gain an edge in the market. If you lower the cost through a pipeline to refineries, this means they can create gasoline at a lower market price than those who are receiving it through the other means. This is simple economics and business.

As regards to point B. There are thousands of miles of pipeline running across this nation. Gas and oil. Considering the few occurrences of major leaks, I think history shows your wrong and know nothing about the business other than "oil bad, it hurt environment". While fines might be "a drop in the bucket", catastrophic failures and leakage cost companies millions or even billions. Why they would want to prevent and maintain those lines are pretty obvious.


PS. It's money.

 

[Bowfinger]

The provided link (unless I missed it) doesn't say anything about the pipeline lowering prices. It's a myth, oil is traded on the global market a little pipeline isn't going to change anything. ...

According to one school of thought, the Keystone pipeline will actually increase prices, at least in the U.S. That's because Keystone is primarily intended to make it cost-effective to export that oil to international markets. Right now, due to transportation costs, the optimal market for that oil is the upper Midwest. This increases supply in that region, thus lowering prices. In turn, because the upper Midwest has a strong supply, it puts less demand on surrounding regions, lowering their costs somewhat as well. If Keystone makes it cost effective to export the oil to overseas markets, supply to the U.S. will drop and our prices will rise.

So, in spite of ample smoke blowing by its promoters and their dupes, the Keystone pipeline is not about lowering costs to Americans. It is about increasing profits for shareholders.