The Hypocrisy of the anti 'Keystone' demonstrators.

[Shady]

Cornell economist just came out like 2 weeks ago with a study which says this very pipeline we are talking about will spill someday Shady. Sorry.

http://www.salon.com/2012/03/19/keystone_pipeline_will_spill_study_predicts/singleton/

LOL, will spill some day huh? Sure, it's possible. But these types of incidents are extremely rare and easily fixed, very quickly. It's not like a deep water well that's hard to get to. You know what else? Some day a plane will crash. Some day a car will get hit by another car. Some day part of a mine will collapse. Some day a building will catch on fire. Some day a basement will get flooded.

[TimG]

And they spill.

Yep. And they got cleaned up and no one really cared. The only reason these spills get in the press today is because they are propaganda which suits the agenda of the 'don't build anything, anywhere' rabble.

[Jack Weber]

Yep. And they got cleaned up and no one really cared. The only reason these spills get in the press today is because they are propaganda which suits the agenda of the 'don't build anything, anywhere' rabble.

I want to preface this by saying I'm a proponent of the pipeline...

I'm also a welder...And not some hack production hot metal glue gun operator...

If they cannot certify that those welds are metalurgically sound and they squashed evidence that things might fail on major joints,then there is a serious problem...

On a project like this,they will be aiming for upwards of 95% defect free welds on the first finished joint..In otherwords,they really are aiming for a 5% failure rate throughout the entire project as it relates to weld defects...

[TimG]

If they cannot certify that those welds are metalurgically sound and they squashed evidence that things might fail on major joints,then there is a serious problem...

Then pipeline's fail-safes detect the problem and shut it down immediately with minimal contamination. If the automated system misses a small leak it will be picked up periodic visual inspections.

These systems have multiple layers so the damaged caused by a failure in one layer is limited by the other layers. A system that depended on every weld being perfect would be a poorly designed system. .

Edited April 7, 2012 by TimG

[dre]

Then pipeline's fail-safes detect the problem and shut it down immediately with minimal contamination. If the automated system misses a small leak it will be picked up periodic visual inspections.

These systems have multiple layers so the damaged caused by a failure in one layer is limited by the other layers. A system that depended on every weld being perfect would be a poorly designed system. .

I dont doubt that we can build a safe pipeline. But its more profitable to build an unsafe one that leaks. But why build a pipeline to the gulf of mexico when Canada imports the bulk of the oil it consumes from Venezuela. If we want to build pipelines then it would make sense we move our oil from where it is to where we need it, and try to acheive as much enegery independance as possible.

[TimG]

I dont doubt that we can build a safe pipeline. But its more profitable to build an unsafe one that leaks.

So what? Perfection is astronomically expensive (if not impossible) therefore the claim that 'its more profitable to build an unsafe one that leak' is trivial and irrelevant. The question that needs to be answered: are pipeline companies finding and cleaning up the leaks when they do occur.

But why build a pipeline to the gulf of mexico when Canada imports the bulk of the oil it consumes from Venezuela.

Because that is where the refineries are and even if one was built in Alberta it would still require multiple pipelines to get the refined product to market.

[Wilber]

Whatever, it's for Americans to decide if they want a pipeline built on their territory, not Canadians. They don't have to explain their reasons to us.

[Keepitsimple]

Here's an article that followed this topic's discussion - and is still relevant today. As with everything Climate related - it's all about perspective - and hypocracy.

Canada’s oil sands are one of the most carbon-intensive sources of crude in the world, and for American climate activists, the Keystone XL pipeline represents a “line in the sand” on climate policy. But greenhouse gas produced by the oil sands is a fraction of the amount spewed by U.S. coal-fired power plants. In 2010, the oil sands produced 48 million tons of carbon-dioxide emissions. Coal-fired power plants in the state of Wisconsin alone produced 43 million tons.

For the environmentalists, the political calculus also boils down to a simple equation: one man, one decision. President Barack Obama will have to make a straight call – yes or no. That’s why the Sierra Club decided for the first time in its 120-year history to engage in civil disobedience in opposition to Keystone XL.

“With coal plants, you’ve got to be fighting all over the place,” said David Pumphrey, an energy and security analyst at Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies. “But you can rally around the Keystone project and turn it into a slogan and make it into an icon in the climate fight. And it becomes less about facts and more about ideology.”

Link: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/the-politics-of-emissions-keystone-is-an-easier-target-than-us-coal-fired-power-plants/article8783444/

Edited September 29, 2014 by Keepitsimple

[PIK]

Here's an article that followed this topic's discussion - and is still relevant today. As with everything Climate related - it's all about perspective - and hypocracy.

Link: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/the-politics-of-emissions-keystone-is-an-easier-target-than-us-coal-fired-power-plants/article8783444/

Put up real facts and they disappear. lol

[Demosthenes26]

Given that currently we a Shipping the oil by train/truck its not only more economical, but I would think safer to ship it by pipeline. Given the destruction of Lac Mégantic and that was largely oil containers that exploded, that would serve as a powerful and tragic illustration as the danger derailment poses.

But the debate of keystone isn't about the safe or environmental impact. As much as they debate those points. This arguement is large about climate change and NIMBYism. Climate change(CC) Environmentalists are opposing this because its oil, and CO2 climate change. But those point aren't as salient as they once where so they've changed it the oil spills and tar sands. It's more economical in both in cost and in carbon footprint to ship by pipeline. But CC environmentalists are more interested in a idealogical argument rather than a practical arguement, and they 100% against anything oil.

Most people aren't idealogues, they are pragmatists. So when it comes to climate change they become disengaged, because many of the requirement to deal with climate change, are too costly or arduous. CC environmentalists aren't able to address the source of the problem, the high demand for oil. So Instead the focus on the dramatic, Tar Sands, oil spills, apocalyptic forecasts etc to achieve their agenda. They want to make thing as costly as possible. So they go for oil companies, because big oil is much easier to target than average joes. Regardless of what environmentalists say or do the price of their actions are always felt by the average person and not by the companies. Either at pump, with jobs, with day to day items becoming more expensive.

There's an enonomic arguement to be made for doing that. Increasing the cost of oil, should result in a decrease in consumption. But oil is a product insensitive to changes in price. As much as we complain about the price of oil people will pay what they need to pay, We have a society that is far more dependant on it, than one should ever be. The focus of any debate should be on reducing our consumption, but unfortunately its not.

[Wilber]

In 2010, the oil sands produced 48 million tons of carbon-dioxide emissions. Coal-fired power plants in the state of Wisconsin alone produced 43 million tons.

Methinks that statement is a bit misleading. That's 48 million tons just to extract the oil. You have to add the emissions produced when that oil is burned. That's not to say it still isn't better than using coal.

[Smallc]

The emissions for the coal don't include the extraction.

[Guest]

Plus, whatever runs on the oil is going to run anyway, on oil from another source.

[On Guard for Thee]

How about the ratio that for every BTU you stockpile from bitumen, you burn 3 for the extraction process. I think they have reduced that somewhat but hey. Burning nat gas to extract tar just doesn't sound all that good to me.

[Smallc]

It does when the things we use rely so much on oil, and will for some time.

[Guest]

If the hydrocarbon is going to be used, I'd rather the economic benefit from its sale went to Canada. I have a CPP to think of.

Edited October 1, 2014 by bcsapper