myiW Current Conditions and Forecasts Community Forums Buy and Sell Services
 
Hi guest · myAccount · Log in
 SearchSearch   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   RegisterRegister 
Keystone pipe dream, or pipeline?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 11, 12, 13, 14  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 9613

PostPosted: Mon Jan 26, 2015 12:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I agree with almost everything in this op ed piece by the Petroleum Association:

Quote:
The following op-ed recently appeared in the San Jose Mercury News:

Fracking: New York, California and the perils of ignoring science

By Dave Quast

California and New York are often viewed as outliers — large, influential and politically liberal states that can be either bellwethers for public policy or objects of bemusement.

Recent developments in the debate over hydraulic fracturing (fracking), however, show that these two states have fundamentally opposite approaches to leadership from Democratic governors.

Gov. Andrew Cuomo of New York didn’t lead, but rather followed when his Health Commissioner announced that the state would continue its ban on fracking. This despite the fact that the state’s Department of Health couldn’t find evidence that fracking is harmful.

While this is unfortunate for the New Yorkers who would have benefitted from the jobs and economic activity provided by the state’s natural gas resources, it could be seen as a boon for neighboring states such as Pennsylvania, which now are assured of the opportunity to produce not only their own energy, but some of New York’s as well.

A stronger barometer of sound energy policy among progressive leaders is California Gov. Jerry Brown, who has followed the scientific consensus on fracking to its logical conclusion.

California, the nation’s third-largest energy producing state, has had a robust debate about hydraulic fracturing for the past several years. Because fracking has been happening safely in California since Dwight Eisenhower was president, there was no reason to act rashly.

State officials moved deliberately, holding dozens of public hearings and looking carefully at the abundant scientific literature.

Fracking bans were defeated handily in the state’s overwhelmingly Democratic legislature. Rather than giving in to a very vocal but scientifically challenged portion of his party’s base, the governor and legislature supported SB 4, a sweeping piece of legislation that strictly regulates fracking and other well-stimulation techniques. Senate Bill 4 will be fully implemented in July.

Not pleased with getting almost everything they previously said they wanted — including chemical disclosure, pre-notification, water testing and well integrity testing — activists now are trying to convince policymakers that New York’s example justifies a California fracking ban.

These activists refuse to acknowledge that government regulators and academic experts have repeatedly said that hydraulic fracturing is a safe process with manageable risks. A 2012 study of the Inglewood Oil Field near Los Angeles, the largest urban oil field in the United States, came to the same conclusion. New York acted contrary to the overwhelming scientific consensus, and in its report cited only “potential” for harm, without identifying actual harm caused by this routine and well-understood 65-year-old well completion technique.

A fracking ban in California would be nonsensical. As one of the country’s major energy producers as well as the third-largest consumer of gas and diesel on the planet, California has to use oil even as it slowly decreases in importance in our overall energy mix. That oil will have to come from somewhere.

A ban on fracking would only lead to higher global carbon emissions, as the state would import more oil by rail and ship from countries with more lax environmental regulations. It would add to unemployment in the state’s most economically troubled region as well as less revenue to fund vital state programs.

When it comes to proven and economically stimulating energy development, New York has nothing to teach California.

Dave Quast is California director of Energy in Depth, a public-outreach project of the California Independent Petroleum Association.


This illustrates the value of regulation, something that escapes the more neo-Bircher of the oil company apologists. Credible regulation gives legitimacy to the proposals of industry that are viewed skeptically by many. In the case of fracking, it is essential to have regulatory controls that ensure well integrity so that drilling fluids reach their targets--deep, oil-bearing formations--without contaminating alluvial formations. It is equally critical to assure minimal discharge of greenhouse gasses, particularly methane. In California, the use of water must be evaluated. But if those are carefully controlled, fracking is acceptable environmentally. Schemes to avoid regulation, perpetuated by Cheney, undermine legitimacy--but are favored by the bully boys in the petroleum industry who just like to get their way and use force to get there.

The issue of legitimacy applies to the Keystone--well illustrated by the ongoing spill to the Yellowstone River. Pipeline design and route selection needs to be carefully regulated to prevent, or at least minimize, spills. While the public is generally in support of the Keystone, and I think it will eventually be approved, they are not in favor of short-circuiting the approval process.

As the song goes, when will they ever learn? Some retired without getting the memo.

Quote:
However, a poll published Monday for The Washington Post and ABC News shows the majority of Americans would rather see TransCanada’s pipeline finish the regulatory review process currently underway than be expediently approved by U.S. Congress.

The telephone poll of 1,003 adults was conducted between Jan. 12 and 15, and prefaced the question about Keystone XL with some background on the pipeline debate. A poll of that size has a 3.5 point error margin.

“Obama has said he won’t decide whether to approve a new oil pipeline from Canada to Texas until a review has determined whether it is in the national interest. The Republicans in Congress are working on a law to authorize the pipeline without Obama’s approval,” the question stated. Half of the survey’s respondents were then asked which side they supported.

Only 34% of respondents said the pipeline should be authorized now, while 61% said the review should be completed before a decision is made. Another 2% did not want the pipeline to be allowed and 3% had no opinion
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
techno900



Joined: 28 Mar 2001
Posts: 2803

PostPosted: Tue Feb 17, 2015 9:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:

(CNN)—A train carrying crude oil derailed Monday in West Virginia and exploded, filling the sky with thick clouds of fire and smoke.

One home was destroyed, and one person was injured, according to Lawrence Messina, spokesman for the West Virginia Department of Military Affairs and Public Safety.

Nearly 30 of the train's more than 100 cars came off the tracks, he said. It's unclear what caused the derailment, which happened around 1:30 p.m. in Fayette County, West Virginia.

Oil from the train spilled into the Kanawha River, a source of drinking water in Kanawha and Fayette counties. Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin issued a state of emergency for both those counties Monday night. Area residents are being urged to conserve water.

Police are also asking residents within a half a mile of the scene to evacuate until further notice.


Pipelines or trains, which would you prefer? This is only one of many oil train derailments in the last few years. And yes, oil will still be moved by trains regardless of the number of pipelines, but pipelines are safer.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 9613

PostPosted: Tue Feb 17, 2015 11:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I shudder to think that this is what passes for critical thinking in the educational systems in the South. Yes, pipelines are safer than trains, or ships. California was locked in litigation with Exxon for decades over that issue. But the shipment of Bakken crude by rail, and the efforts of the petroleum industry to avoid reasonable regulation on all matters, has nothing whatsoever to do with the Keystone pipeline. Bakken crude comes from North Dakota, not Canada. It is domestic crude that, had the Bush administration not been in the pocket of Pig Oil, could have been regulated for safety in transport more than a decade ago.

You argument proves precisely the opposite of what you thought. Carry on.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
techno900



Joined: 28 Mar 2001
Posts: 2803

PostPosted: Tue Feb 17, 2015 4:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The usual condescending post from mac. I guess your ego needed a boost.

I am talking oil transport. Whether it's Keystone or other pipelines, the issue is safety and pollution. I am for pipeline transport for Canadian oil, North Dakota oil, or any oil rather than by rail.

So, if the Keystone pipeline is never built and the Canadian oil is transported by train to the gulf coast, that will be a better option? Of course, without a pipeline, maybe we won't touch the Canadian oil, I really don't know.

mac said:
Quote:
It is domestic crude that, had the Bush administration not been in the pocket of Pig Oil, could have been regulated for safety in transport more than a decade ago.


Maybe true, so where has Obama been on this issue for the last 6 years? Instead of fighting Keystone, maybe he should have been working on rail safety regulations.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 9613

PostPosted: Tue Feb 17, 2015 5:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Techno--when you make a foolish comment you deserve what you get. Of course, you guys never come up with this on your own, and you are not well informed. Cheney cut all the regulations for oil production he could through use of Executive authority. That, and technology advances, led to a boom in North Dakota oil production--the highly volatile Bakken crude that burned in the de-railing. I know people involved in trying to regulate use of rail transport. It has been fought by the oil industry--just a taste:

Quote:
BISMARCK, N.D. — Oil producers in North Dakota are objecting to any new state regulations that would require them to reduce the volatility of crude before it’s loaded onto rail cars.

North Dakota’s Industrial Commission is considering new rules that would require companies to remove certain liquids and gasses from crude oil train shipments, a process some say would make such transport safer. But oil industry officials told the commission Tuesday that the state already has proper regulations in place.

“To date, no evidence has been presented to suggest that measureable safety improvements would result from processes beyond current oil conditioning,” Hess Corp. spokesman Brent Lohnes said.

Oil trains in the U.S. and Canada were involved in at least 10 major accidents during the last 18 months, including an explosion in Lac-Megantic, Quebec, that killed 47. Other trains carrying Bakken crude have since derailed and caught fire in Alabama, Virginia, North Dakota.

But Kari Cutting, vice president of the North Dakota Petroleum Council, said nine of the incidents involved derailments and one was due to a leaky valve.

“The material contained in these railcars was not the cause,” Cutting said.

A federal report released earlier this year by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration says oil from North Dakota’s prolific Bakken formation may be more flammable than other crudes. But a report funded by the North Dakota Petroleum Council says Bakken oil is no more dangerous to transport by rail than other crudes and fuels.

Oil from North Dakota began being shipped by trains in 2008 when the state reached capacity for pipeline shipments. The state is now the nation’s No. 2 oil producer, behind Texas.


Rule making takes time, especially with Republicans fighting you every inch of the way. As I alluded to in previous posts, the California Coastal Commission, and many other California agencies, have tried to get crude shipped by pipeline to reduce spills and air pollution. The Reagan and both Bush administrations helped the oil industry fight those regulations. And the Keystone pipeline would not be used for Bakken crude.

But I will tell you this--the American public wants a safe route chosen for the Keystone, and the normal process for selecting a safe route chosen. When that is done, if the sponsors agreed to a program of carbon offsets the Obama administration would take the deal in a fat minute.

Read more outside Koch propaganda and you will make fewer glaring errors.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
isobars



Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 18340

PostPosted: Tue Feb 17, 2015 5:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

techno900 wrote:
maybe he should have been working on rail safety regulations.

How'd "Don't crash" work out? Sad

Any terrorist or bored kid with a crowbar can derail a 60 mph oil train. Pipelines have safety valves with leak detectors, and are often underground anyway.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 9613

PostPosted: Tue Feb 17, 2015 5:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Isobars is another that reads only from pet sources that will stimulate his outrage against all things Obama and liberal, no matter what the facts. The oil industry resisted double bottom hulls, use of pilots and tugs in tight harbors, and requirements to either build pipelines or site them carefully. So old pipelines, built to poor standards--or no standards--break and spill, and the oil industry uses bulk rail carriers for oil with little consideration of risk.

Pipelines, if sited and maintained well, are safer than trains and ships--but not safe:

Quote:
Tar sands oil pipelines are definitely NOT safe, they spill all the time!

The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (“PHMSA”) is the primary federal regulatory agency responsible for energy pipeline safety in the U.S. This agency maintains records and statistics for pipeline incidents in the U.S. According to PHMSA records, there have been 10,273 reported incidents between 1992 and 2011. These incidents include 384 fatalities, 1,568 injuries, $5,354,942,041 in property damage, and 2,529,868 barrels of spilled hazardous liquid (including crude oil). In 2011 alone, there were 600 incidents resulting in 151,173 barrels of spilled hazardous liquid.

In fact, the Keystone I pipeline had a whopping 14 spills in just a 12-month period. Because Keystone I is owned by the same company that wants to build Keystone XL, and because Keystone I carries the same product that Keystone XL would carry, a look at Keystone I provides a good indication of what to expect from Keystone XL.

http://www.walkinbeauty-bethechange.com/safety-spills-and-statistics.html

Don't trouble Iso with facts, or actual opinion polls--he won't read them. Get off my lawn!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
techno900



Joined: 28 Mar 2001
Posts: 2803

PostPosted: Wed Feb 18, 2015 9:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mac's trips to never, never land always fascinates me. My post are typically neat and clear, and express my opinion.

Here it is clear and simple:

1. Oil train derails and burns!
2. Train derailments are occurring frequently
3. I believe pipelines are safer than rail!

I posted it on the Keystone thread because it seem to be the most appropriate place and at the same time, implied that completing the Keystone pipeline would be better than transporting the tar sands oil by train.

MY ISSUE IS WITH RAIL SAFETY/DERAILMENTS, NOT OIL TANK CAR SAFETY OR BAKKEN OIL VOLITILITY.

So, where is the foolish comment?

Mac said:
Quote:
California was locked in litigation with Exxon for decades over that issue. But the shipment of Bakken crude by rail, and the efforts of the petroleum industry to avoid reasonable regulation on all matters, has nothing whatsoever to do with the Keystone pipeline.

So Exxon is locked in litigation over rail line safety and derailments? The petroleum industry is avoiding reasonable regulation on rail line safety?

Don't you see that instead of staying on topic, you go off in obtuse directions with your responses.

Should you chose to respond (no doubt about that), let's discuss rail safety, not rail car safety or rail car content volatility.

Oh, and by the way, assuming pipeline transport of crude oil is safer than rail transport, I do believe the completion of the Keystone line is relevant to the discussion.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
isobars



Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 18340

PostPosted: Wed Feb 18, 2015 10:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

techno900 wrote:
mac's trips to never, never land always fascinates me.

Don't you see that instead of staying on topic, you go off in obtuse directions with your responses.

No, he doesn't. His "mind" is wired differently from those of rational people. You're lucky it fascinates you, as it must provide hours of entertainment for you. You see a monkey in a cage turning flips; I see a monkey in a cage slinging every kind of bodily waste he can generate at anyone who disagrees with him.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 9613

PostPosted: Wed Feb 18, 2015 11:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Techno--it is very simple, and went right over your head. The oil industry immediately spun the explosion of rail-transported Bakken crude into an advertisement for the Keystone pipeline, and without any thought you bit. The Keystone pipeline will not transport Bakken crude. By the numbers, the logic for those who don't think issues through themselves:

1. The time to determine, and regulate, the safety of transport is when oil development is permitted. After that it is difficult if not impossible to add conditions. The Bakken discoveries were brought on line during the Bush administration, after secret meetings between Cheney and oil executives. It is perhaps a certainty that Cheney, a former Haliburton executive, knew the potential for the Bakken field; this from the source:

Quote:
a horizontal well drilled in the Elm Coulee Field by a partnership between Lyco Energy and Halliburton that incited our modern boom. The Elm Coulee was proven economic in 2003 and operators began expanding into North Dakota after EOG’s Parshall discovery in 2006.


I don't know how oil transportation was regulated in the original approvals for that field--but clearly pipeline transport was not required, and cannot readily be required now.

2. I agree with you that pipelines--in the right locations--are safer than rail, ship or truck transport. But that is a red herring. The resistance of the oil producers to being required to transport by pipeline is legend. It wasn't required of the Bakken field, cannot be required now, and Republicans have supported the oil companies in avoiding strict liability for their spills pretty much forever. It surfaces now as a bogus argument in favor of Keystone--a different source. Mrgybe would be proud of the oil companies' propaganda system's spinning their irresponsibility in transport of oil into talking points in support of Keystone.

Great logic--not.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 11, 12, 13, 14  Next
Page 12 of 14

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum

myiW | Weather | Community | Membership | Support | Log in
like us on facebook
© Copyright 1999-2007 WeatherFlow, Inc Contact Us Ad Marketplace

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group