Obama Blocks Pipeline to Get Cheap Canadian Oil

#76
#76
Last week, a Sunoco 8 inch pipeline ruptured and 100K gallons of gasoline spilled. No deaths or real damage and its already been cleaned up
 
#77
#77
lawgator1 said:
Of course they don't PLAN on it.

The question is, do they underestimate the risk? Either by internal bias or simply by mistake?
Click to expand...

I see where you are coming from. But imo, it's bad business to underestimate risk. As engineers, your number one concern is quality (which is linked to safety), not profit. You can't have profit without quality. An accident can sink your reputation and in turn your company. I know BP took a big hit, but it was big enough to take it. But I'm sure it probably wishes Haliburton would have done it's job. I'm personally curious how much Haliburton's future contracts were damaged by the spill.
 
#78
#78
I hear you on the risk. I've got a little bit of experience in m.e., any responsibly designed product has to be made to withstand forces and issues it'll probably never see. Does that always happen? Certainly not, but it's a pretty good rate.

I kept up with it early on, the main concern seemed to be a potential spill into the aquafer (sp?) that covers nearly all the great plain between nebraska and texas. How has that been addressed?
 
#79
#79
Weezy said:
I see where you are coming from. But imo, it's bad business to underestimate risk. As engineers, your number one concern is quality (which is linked to safety), not profit. You can't have profit without quality. An accident can sink your reputation and in turn your company. I know BP took a big hit, but it was big enough to take it. But I'm sure it probably wishes Haliburton would have done it's job. I'm personally curious how much Haliburton's future contracts were damaged by the spill.
Click to expand...

milohimself said:
I hear you on the risk. I've got a little bit of experience in m.e., any responsibly designed product has to be made to withstand forces and issues it'll probably never see. Does that always happen? Certainly not, but it's a pretty good rate.

I kept up with it early on, the main concern seemed to be a potential spill into the aquafer (sp?) that covers nearly all the great plain between nebraska and texas. How has that been addressed?
Click to expand...


The simple fact is that big business has an incalculable number of successes when it comes to measuring risk and preventing accidents. On the other hand, as technology becomes apparently capable of harnessing ever increasing powerful and destructive forces or products, the outcome side of the equation for the percentage that fail is becoming unacceptably huge.

Consider not just the gulf spill, but the Valdes. Or the Japanese nuclear reactors last year.

Again, I'm not saying that the benefits of the proposal don't outweigh the risks or the potentially bad outcome if there is a disaster of some sort.

I'm just saying that critics of the president seem so absolutely certain that his decision is so bad, and yet I see a lot of confusion, misinformation, and lack of information out there about the both the cost and benefits side.

I am open to it, I truly am.
 
#80
#80
I believe that you are.

The question I was asking, in terms of potential environmental impact, does not have to do with some frog or lizard, but rather a potentially huge impact on the main source of water for millions of people. I am not aware of how the design of the Keystone XL has been changed to address that concern, if at all so I'm just curious if somebody could fill me in.
 
#81
#81
milohimself said:
I believe that you are.

The question I was asking, in terms of potential environmental impact, does not have to do with some frog or lizard, but rather a potentially huge impact on the main source of water for millions of people. I am not aware of how the design of the Keystone XL has been changed to address that concern, if at all so I'm just curious if somebody could fill me in.
Click to expand...

From what I've read, the proximity to the watershed was not as close as some made it out to be. But, the route was altered to be even further away. The studies show the risk to the water supply is so statistically unlikely that it borders on impossible.
 
#82
#82
Here is more information for those wanting it:

Keystone XL: Liberal Histrionics Answered with Conservative Histrionics | Jerry Taylor and Peter Van Doren | Cato Institute: Commentary

Both opponents and proponents of the project are offering palpable nonsense to gin up their respective bases in hopes of horsewhipping their electoral opponents in 2012.
...
The second environmentalist objection is that the pipeline would travel across land where important groundwater aquifers — most notably, the Ogallala aquifer below the Sand Hills in Nebraska — are extremely close to the surface. Were the pipeline to rupture there, environmentalists warn, crucial drinking and agricultural water relied upon by millions would be dangerously compromised.

Well, nonsense. Professor emeritus James Goeke, a research hydrologist at the University of Nebraska with no obvious dog in this fight, points out that the Ogallala slopes from west to east and that the deep waters within the host rocks move persistently downhill — that is, eastward. Happily, approximately 80 percent of the Ogallala Aquifer lies to the west of the proposed pipeline — that is, “uphill” of the pipeline’s proposed route. Spilled oil simply cannot move upward against gravity. Moreover, the water is 50 feet or more below the surface along much of the pipeline’s route; any oil spilled would have a difficult time infiltrating that far beneath the surface. Where the water is closer to the surface, the pipeline will be encased in a waterproof covering and cement jacket. Finally, the highly varied layers with the rock formation that houses the Ogallala would itself serve to localize the impact of any contamination. Writing in The New York Times last October, Goeke concluded that “All of this comforts me with the knowledge that a leak from the XL pipeline would pose minimal risk to the aquifer as a whole.”
...
Proponents, however, offer arguments for the pipeline that are little better than are the objections. First, we hear incessantly about “tens of thousands” of new jobs (perhaps as many as 119,000 jobs according to an economic consulting firm hired by TransCanada, the firm that hopes to build the pipeline) for an economy in great need of new employment opportunities. Yet TransCanada itself acknowledges that only 2,500 to 4,650 workers would be required to build the pipeline. The remainder of the alleged jobs come from: adding jobs already created (or, in many cases, already come and gone) from Keytsone’s previous pipeline expansion investments to the jobs that would follow from letting the rest of the project go forward; dubious “multiplier effects” (the use of which is routinely attacked by free market analysts, at least in other contexts); and an ill-founded assumption that domestic rather than foreign firms will provide most of the raw materials and engineering work necessary for pipeline construction.

The only independent economic impact study comes from researchers at Cornell. Their review of the methodology used to produce these high end job creation estimates is, for the most part, devastating. Their conclusion? It’s unlikely that more than 4,650 temporary new jobs would be created and only 50 of those jobs would remain after the pipeline was completed. Big deal.

Regardless, pro-development conservatives should be leery of making these job creation arguments. The point of economic activity isn’t job creation; it’s to allow gains from trade to occur among firms, workers, and consumers. Using “jobs” as a metric to support or oppose federal action is dangerous political business for those inclined to limit the size and scope of government.
Click to expand...
 
#83
#83
I like where your head's at. That's why I posted it on the second page. Although I probably should have given more text since I don't think people actually clicked the link and read the environment risk part you quoted.

I'm not trying to be a dick, but I just wanted to point out that the numbers issue was talked about earlier.

(and also pat myself on the back)
 
#84
#84
The People's Republic of China would like to thank the POUS for sending them more oil and the associated jobs, "Xia! Xia! Wo de Penyou!
 
#86
#86
overseasorange said:
The People's Republic of China would like to thank the POUS for sending them more oil and the associated jobs, "Xia! Xia! Wo de Penyou!
Click to expand...

Brazil is also pretty stoked. Now we definitely have to buy oil from their Gulf drilling operations.
 
#87
#87
dreVol said:
Brazil is also pretty stoked. Now we definitely have to buy oil from their Gulf drilling operations.
Click to expand...
I work for Petrobras America. They have allot of U.S. citizens working for them. Plus, most of our fields are partner operated (ExxonMobil, Chevron, ConocPhillips, etc). In other words, as far as royalties, taxes, etc. they are treated like anybody else drilling in the GOM.

Quite frankly, with all the reserves lying off the coast of Brazil, I don't know why they stay in the GOM. I just hope upper management does not come to the same conclusion.
 
#88
#88
Weezy said:
I like where your head's at. That's why I posted it on the second page. Although I probably should have given more text since I don't think people actually clicked the link and read the environment risk part you quoted.

I'm not trying to be a dick, but I just wanted to point out that the numbers issue was talked about earlier.

(and also pat myself on the back)
Click to expand...

:peace2:
 
#89
#89
milohimself said:
I hear you on the risk. I've got a little bit of experience in m.e., any responsibly designed product has to be made to withstand forces and issues it'll probably never see. Does that always happen? Certainly not, but it's a pretty good rate.

I kept up with it early on, the main concern seemed to be a potential spill into the aquafer (sp?) that covers nearly all the great plain between nebraska and texas. How has that been addressed?
Click to expand...

The aquifier is very deed underground, the likelyhood of any leak making it's way into the aquifier is so remote as to not be a ligitimate reason to stop the pipeline.

pipeline.jpg


104702_600.jpg


gm119.gif
 
#90
#90
I forgot to add that there is another way to bring in the oil and it's by rail car. Guess who owns one of the biggest RRs in the country. Warren Buffet
 
#91
#91
Serious question. Someone said earlier something about cheap Canadian oil. Does the market not dictate the price of Canadian oil? What makes it cheaper than Brent or WTI?
 
#93
#93
rmsmith said:
Serious question. Someone said earlier something about cheap Canadian oil. Does the market not dictate the price of Canadian oil? What makes it cheaper than Brent or WTI?
Click to expand...

Brent and WTI are the best types of crude oil, easily refinable. Not all oil that comes out of the ground is equal quality. This oil along with Venezuelan oil are the worst quality and the only refineries that can handle it are located in TX and LA.
 
#95
#95
Wonder how much Buffet will contribute to the Obama campaign and the dhimmirat party?

President Obama’s Very Dishonest Campaign Ad Regarding Energy | Watts Up With That?

Falsehood #1: “Secretive oil billionaires attacking President Obama”… The Koch brothers (and the oil & gas industry in general) have been anything but secretive in their attacks on President Obama.

Falsehood #2: The ad implies that President Obama has created 2.7 million “clean energy industry” jobs.

Falsehood #3: The ad implies that President Obama somehow played a role in the increase in US domestic oil production over the last few years… That is beyond ridiculous!

Over the last two years, the Obama administration has almost paralyzed operations in the Gulf of Mexico with an unlawful permitorium and has aggressively tried to hamper the shale plays with fraudulent EPA attacks on fracking and unlawful efforts to make BLM lands unavailable…

This is all anyone ever needs to know about President Obama’s views on energy…
Click to expand...

2012-0120-Pipe-Chris-A.jpg


181147.JPG


24y1c85.jpg
 
#96
#96
VolsNSkinsFan said:
Brent and WTI are the best types of crude oil, easily refinable. Not all oil that comes out of the ground is equal quality. This oil along with Venezuelan oil are the worst quality and the only refineries that can handle it are located in TX and LA.
Click to expand...

If its the worst quality wouldn't it cost more to refine?
 
#99
#99
VolsNSkinsFan said:
I forgot to add that there is another way to bring in the oil and it's by rail car. Guess who owns one of the biggest RRs in the country. Warren Buffet
Click to expand...

What a coincidence! I'm sure he will continue to voluntarily donate more of the proceeds from that venture to the government. Or maybe help his secretary pay her taxes.

What a dickhead
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top