User not logged in - login - register
Home Calendar Books School Tool Photo Gallery Message Boards Users Statistics Advertise Site Info
go to bottom | |
 Message Boards » » Keystone Pipleline - Yay or Nay Page 1 2 3 [4] 5, Prev Next  
dtownral
All American
25584 Posts
user info
edit post

Why would any true American not want to sell their land to a Canadian company so they can transport really dirty Canadian oil to sell to foreign countries in the global market?

2/1/2015 8:33:06 PM

eleusis
All American
24479 Posts
user info
edit post

It is entirely true. eminent domain still requires the utility to pay for the property, and utilities will pay over the appraised value if it means staying out of court for full condemnation proceedings.

I don't see why the company being Canadian matters regarding eminent domain, seeing as how it is American companies that will be using the transported oil. Would it really make this pipeline any different if one of the energy sector giants from Dallas were buying the property?

2/3/2015 9:21:48 PM

Pupils DiL8t
All American
4273 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"The Final SEIS states that lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions from development and use of oil sands crude is about 17% greater than emissions from average crude oil refined in the United States on a wells-to-wheels basis.

The Final SEIS also finds that the incremental greenhouse gas emissions from the extraction, transport, refining and use of the 830,000 barrels per day of oils sands crude that could be transported by the proposed Project at full capacity would result in an additional 1.3 to 27.4 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (MMTC02-e) per year compared to the reference crudes. To put that in perspective, 27.4 MMTC02-e per year is equivalent to the annual greenhouse gas emissions from 5.7 million passenger vehicles or 7.8 coal fired power plants. Over the 50-year lifetime of the pipeline, this could translate into releasing as much as 1.37 billion more tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere."


http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/20140032.pdf

2/5/2015 10:07:55 AM

dtownral
All American
25584 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
" Would it really make this pipeline any different if one of the energy sector giants from Dallas were buying the property?"

it wouldn't be different, imminent domain shouldn't be used in that case either

2/5/2015 10:22:48 AM

y0willy0
All American
7863 Posts
user info
edit post

house vote 270-152

obama gonna veto

2/12/2015 2:20:08 PM

stowaway
All American
11675 Posts
user info
edit post

And republicans are going to put it in every bill they can. It's like all of the aca votes, reversed.

2/13/2015 8:45:18 AM

rjrumfel
All American
21499 Posts
user info
edit post

^^^Do we know how many acres would have to be seized from private homes/land to make the pipeline work? Serious question, no sarcasm.

2/13/2015 9:07:12 AM

dtownral
All American
25584 Posts
user info
edit post

i have no idea, but the number of eminent domain cases is in the hundreds

[Edited on February 13, 2015 at 9:42 AM. Reason : /]

2/13/2015 9:42:14 AM

y0willy0
All American
7863 Posts
user info
edit post

goodnight sweet pipe

2/24/2015 5:31:54 PM

rjrumfel
All American
21499 Posts
user info
edit post

eh, I just need a Venn diagram to understand why he vetoed it.

2/24/2015 5:55:12 PM

dtownral
All American
25584 Posts
user info
edit post

Hey Obama, Ima let you finish, but Wisconsin built a bigger and more dangerous pipeline while no one was watching

Wisconsin pipeline dwarfs Keystone and affects every waterway in the state
http://www.wisconsingazette.com/wisconsin/xxlbreakwisconsin-pipeline-dwarfs-keystone-and-affects-every-waterway-in-the-state.html

2/24/2015 6:32:12 PM

TKE-Teg
All American
42729 Posts
user info
edit post

*potentially more dangerous

2/25/2015 12:33:50 PM

Pupils DiL8t
All American
4273 Posts
user info
edit post

The State Department's working hard for the American people Canadian oil companies.

http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/4/20/Enbridge-Canada-oil-pipeline.html

Quote :
"[State Department Attorney-Adviser] Hahs informed her colleagues in [an] email that they were 'running out of time' to offer Enbridge the department's approval.

'Enbridge needs to do the horizontal directional drilling under the 2 rivers in the border segment for Line 3 while the ground is still frozen, so they are planning to do that in mid-April, i.e., 2 weeks from now,' Hahs wrote.

'So we’re running out of time on that one,' Hahs added.

The Line 3 replacement plan — which included construction of a 'New Border Segment' — was approved less than a month later."

4/29/2015 10:20:29 AM

LoneSnark
All American
12210 Posts
user info
edit post

What is dangerous is transporting oil via freight train. Therefore, that someone built a pipeline somewhere/somehow makes the world a safer place.

4/29/2015 11:31:38 AM

Smath74
All American
93140 Posts
user info
edit post

https://www.google.com/search?q=oil+train+derailment&rlz=1C1TSNP_enUS507US507&es_sm=93&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=Dw5BVdu-FcqYgwSd4oHIBA&ved=0CAkQ_AUoAw&biw=1777&bih=861&dpr=0.9

4/29/2015 1:00:32 PM

Pupils DiL8t
All American
4273 Posts
user info
edit post

^
Good point. Tar sands extraction should be avoided entirely.

4/29/2015 8:10:06 PM

LoneSnark
All American
12210 Posts
user info
edit post

Are you suggesting sanctions or possibly a military invasion of Canada? If not, then tar sands oil is going to be extracted whatever we say or do. Therefore, all we do by preventing pipeline construction is cause the oil to be shipped via rail, which is dangerous for both human life and the environment. Therefore, preventing the construction of pipelines is dangerous for both human life and the environment.

5/2/2015 2:16:35 AM

Shrike
All American
9594 Posts
user info
edit post

Not really. The companies extracting tar sands are the same ones drilling holes deep in the ocean, frakking, or doing traditional extraction. How much they devote to tar sands is entirely dependent on the relative profitability of the other methods and types of energy production (including renewables) at any given time. Having a pipeline going all the way to the gulf coast tilts profitability in the favor of tar sands leading to more utilization of it. So no, it won't be extracted regardless and rejecting this pipeline is a big step in ensuring that.

5/3/2015 5:55:44 PM

eleusis
All American
24479 Posts
user info
edit post

the pipeline won't influence how much oil comes out of the tar sands - the pipeline will only provide leverage to get the railroads to come down on their shipping costs. Voting against the pipeline isn't about curtailing oil production; it's about propping up our railroad industry. Half of the rail shipments in this country are energy related, whether they be coal, oil, or natural gas. The shift away from burning coal and the desire to move oil and gas via pipelines could signal major troubles for the railroad industry in this country. The recent surge in oil production from the Bakken shale and the tar sands in Canada have helped tremendously to prop up the railroad companies that were in horrible financial shape just 30 years ago.

5/3/2015 8:26:15 PM

LoneSnark
All American
12210 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"Not really. The companies extracting tar sands are the same ones drilling holes deep in the ocean, frakking, or doing traditional extraction."

The higher price of transport, rail versus pipeline, is not all that much. The people of Alberta are not going to abandon their homes and businesses and move to frak in the U.S. or drill in the gulf of mexico en-mass just because the railroads take a few cents more per barrel.

5/7/2015 12:02:15 AM

dtownral
All American
25584 Posts
user info
edit post

it's cute that you think that "the people" make those kinds of capital decisions and that capital is not mobile

5/7/2015 8:00:48 AM

TerdFerguson
All American
6177 Posts
user info
edit post

The people of Alberta have decided:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/alberta/alberta-election-oil-patch/article24272879/

Quote :
"NDP Leader Rachel Notley, who ended nearly 44 years of Progressive Conservative rule in Alberta in an extraordinary majority win on Tuesday, has said her government would review the royalties rates paid by oil and gas companies, increase corporate taxes, strengthen environmental rules and halt the practice of spending taxpayer dollars to promote pipeline projects in Washington and elsewhere."


Quote :
"Another focus, according to Ms. Notley’s platform, will be bolstering the province’s reputation on climate change as previous governments have resisted establishing tougher targets for carbon reduction from the oil sands and other industries. Some energy experts have said a better record on climate could help the industry further its aims to improve access to markets."


Quote :
"Ms. Notley has also said she would stop government promotion of the Northern Gateway and Keystone XL pipelines, in sharp contrast to Mr. Prentice’s plans to keep spending tax dollars to push projects aimed at adding new markets for Alberta’s oil, among the highest-cost deposits globally."

5/7/2015 12:21:05 PM

HockeyRoman
All American
11811 Posts
user info
edit post

I heard that last night too. Pretty amazing imo. Tar sands are ungodly nasty.

5/7/2015 5:33:21 PM

LoneSnark
All American
12210 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"it's cute that you think that "the people" make those kinds of capital decisions and that capital is not mobile"

Who do you think makes those kinds of capital decisions? We don't have artificial intelligence yet. Some person does.

And capital certainly is mobile. A massive flood of said mobile capital has been pouring into Alberta to ramp up production of so called "dirty oil".

And it is rather silly that Canadian governments were spending money lobbying the US when pretty much everyone knows Obama would never approve the pipeline.

5/7/2015 7:24:21 PM

dtownral
All American
25584 Posts
user info
edit post

here is what you said:
Quote :
" The people of Alberta are not going to abandon their homes and businesses and move to frak in the U.S. or drill in the gulf of mexico en-mass just because the railroads take a few cents more per barrel."

the people of Alberta aren't going anywhere, the executives who make those capital decisions get to move into fracking or anything they want wherever they want to and don't need to move anywhere to do it. they don't have to move anyone except maybe a few key managers; it's the capital they will move, not the people. they don't give a shit about the people, if there is no work in Alberta all those people will just be SOL

5/8/2015 9:52:19 AM

eleusis
All American
24479 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"they don't have to move anyone except maybe a few key managers; it's the capital they will move, not the people"


it's not just capital and management, they have large amounts of sunk costs in plants and machinery that can't just be picked up and moved. If it were that simple, they would have shut down production in the tar sands the minute oil dropped below $70/barrel.

These low oil prices won't last long; I give it about 18 months before prices either spike back or some serious shit pops off in the middle east, or both.

5/10/2015 9:05:49 PM

dtownral
All American
25584 Posts
user info
edit post

a company will write off capital if it makes sense to

i have no idea if it does in this case, i doubt it, and never claimed that it did; the idea that a company would refrain from making changes because they can't move labor from alberta is an adorable one though

5/11/2015 7:55:03 AM

Shrike
All American
9594 Posts
user info
edit post

Oil prices don't have to stay low forever, just long enough for the Canadian political climate to shift against tar sands development in general.

5/11/2015 1:09:14 PM

LoneSnark
All American
12210 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"the idea that a company would refrain from making changes because they can't move labor from alberta is an adorable one though"

And an idea I didn't mean to suggest. Remember, we're talking about a political failure to lower shipping costs, which have been high all along, to somehow cause corporate executives to panic and irrationally flee Alberta, rendering the place a road-warrior-esk capital-starved wasteland.

My position is thus: if it is economically viable to produce tar sands oil, then even if all the large players pulled out and fled to the gulf of Mexico, as was suggested, the people of Alberta would find a way to replace them. Either other corporations will move in to replace them, local corporations will grow to replace them, or new corporations will be founded to replace them.

[Edited on May 11, 2015 at 2:24 PM. Reason : .,.]

5/11/2015 2:23:35 PM

LoneSnark
All American
12210 Posts
user info
edit post

And so life without pipelines continues:

North Dakota town evacuated after oil cars derail and catch fire.
http://bismarcktribune.com/bakken/north-dakota-town-evacuated-after-oil-cars-derail-and-catch/article_992b4c53-24f4-54fd-a657-9943d69fca0c.html

5/12/2015 10:30:59 AM

dtownral
All American
25584 Posts
user info
edit post

the solution is to not allow this more volatile oil into old DOT-111s that were not designed for it

also, rail cars are still used even to places that pipelines go

[Edited on May 12, 2015 at 11:58 AM. Reason : and to invest in rail line safety and capacity upgrades]

5/12/2015 11:57:04 AM

LoneSnark
All American
12210 Posts
user info
edit post

Sure...we should also build more pipelines to get as much oil as makes economic sense off the rails. As usual, there are multiple avenues available to make the world a better place.

5/12/2015 11:15:23 PM

TKE-Teg
All American
42729 Posts
user info
edit post

I'm fully on board to increase and expand the US's railway system. One of the most efficient ways to transport goods and people.

5/13/2015 10:24:24 AM

eleusis
All American
24479 Posts
user info
edit post

I'm not. at least pipelines can be buried on easements and the land returned to agricultural use after they're installed, unlike railways that take the land and then bully anyone that needs to cross the railroad property with roads or utilities.

We can't even maintain the railways we have in this country to begin with, as evidenced by what happened in Philly yesterday. The last thing we need is more railway infrastructure to maintain.

5/13/2015 11:36:54 AM

dtownral
All American
25584 Posts
user info
edit post

we need investment in infrastructure for rail totally separate of this issue

5/13/2015 12:13:00 PM

TKE-Teg
All American
42729 Posts
user info
edit post

^Yeah I was stating this more than saying we need more rail for oil transportation. I don't agree with that.

5/13/2015 2:03:41 PM

darkone
(\/) (;,,,;) (\/)
11253 Posts
user info
edit post

Is this thing still a cluterfuck of eminent domain abuses?

5/14/2015 11:12:30 AM

LoneSnark
All American
12210 Posts
user info
edit post

Reforming eminent domain laws is a separate issue. Or is the scheme to hold pipeline construction hostage in hopes that the oil industry will push for eminent domain reform?

5/14/2015 4:08:23 PM

darkone
(\/) (;,,,;) (\/)
11253 Posts
user info
edit post

Why would the oil industry push for eminent domain reform when they're the ones who benefit?

5/15/2015 11:51:05 AM

dtownral
All American
25584 Posts
user info
edit post

they want to make it easier for them

5/15/2015 12:35:30 PM

LoneSnark
All American
12210 Posts
user info
edit post

^^ They wouldn't. But it seems those that object to the keystone pipeline on the grounds of eminent domain reform think they would.

5/21/2015 2:37:37 PM

HockeyRoman
All American
11811 Posts
user info
edit post

11/2/2015 9:02:34 PM

Pupils DiL8t
All American
4273 Posts
user info
edit post

I wasn't expecting this after TransCanada shelved its Keystone application.

TransCanada sues U.S. over Keystone XL pipeline rejection
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-transcanada-keystone-idUSKBN0UK2JG20160107

1/6/2016 8:31:10 PM

eleusis
All American
24479 Posts
user info
edit post

TransCanada tried to shelve the pipeline project because they knew Obama was going to reject it and they wanted to delay the decision for the next president. Since the US decided to ignore the request and proceeded to reject it anyway, this was only the next natural step.

1/9/2016 7:45:19 PM

ElGimpy
All American
2986 Posts
user info
edit post

Leaked over 200k gallons this morning

11/16/2017 7:50:07 PM

Cherokee
All American
8019 Posts
user info
edit post

http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/16/us/keystone-pipeline-leak/index.html

11/16/2017 7:56:01 PM

LoneSnark
All American
12210 Posts
user info
edit post

leaks happen. The pipeline owner will clean it up and move on. The devastated area will grow back given time. As such, this is a non-event in the long term.

11/21/2017 8:24:12 AM

Exiled
Eyes up here ^^
5855 Posts
user info
edit post

Except for whatever may leech into the watertable, or kill off any wildlife before it's 'cleaned up'. But sure, the leak-proof pipeline is totally operating up to standards. Nothing to see here.

11/21/2017 8:36:56 AM

wdprice3
BinaryBuffonary
45669 Posts
user info
edit post

nah, nothing to worry about. humans can't permanently impact the environment. those dead animals will reincarnate.

11/21/2017 8:58:29 AM

LoneSnark
All American
12210 Posts
user info
edit post

Unless they're endangered, of course. But, those dead animals just mean fewer of them will starve to death. Nature is pretty mean, in that respect.

No pipeline is leakproof, we knew this when it was built. Now that is has had a leak has not actually changed anything. j

[Edited on November 30, 2017 at 12:13 PM. Reason : .,.]

11/30/2017 12:12:34 PM

 Message Boards » The Soap Box » Keystone Pipleline - Yay or Nay Page 1 2 3 [4] 5, Prev Next  
go to top | |
Admin Options : move topic | lock topic

© 2019 by The Wolf Web - All Rights Reserved.
The material located at this site is not endorsed, sponsored or provided by or on behalf of North Carolina State University.
Powered by CrazyWeb v2.37 - our disclaimer.