Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

..... from the other thread. For Baldy, who needs a separate thread to answer questions.

kalm says: Where is it being delivered to and what makes tar sands oil more environmentally friendly ?

Ibanez wrote:..... from the other thread. For Baldy, who needs a separate thread to answer questions.

kalm says: Where is it being delivered to and what makes tar sands oil more environmentally friendly ?

Baldy does make a great point however...

Baldy wrote: If you're against the pipeline, you obviously are under the incorrect assumption that shipping oil by rail or truck is safer, more efficient, and more environmentally friendly than it is by pipeline. Why???

DSUrocks07 wrote:Baldy does make a great point however...

Baldy wrote: If you're against the pipeline, you obviously are under the incorrect assumption that shipping oil by rail or truck is safer, more efficient, and more environmentally friendly than it is by pipeline. Why???

Hey. If you want that question answered, start your own damn thread!

DSUrocks07 wrote:Baldy does make a great point however...

Baldy wrote: If you're against the pipeline, you obviously are under the incorrect assumption that shipping oil by rail or truck is safer, more efficient, and more environmentally friendly than it is by pipeline. Why???

It's a question that won't get answered (among others in that particular thread).
Instead of an answer, you'll get off topic questions, a non sequitur response or two, and deflections.

.

.

It appears most of the oil will he refined here with some of the refined product being exported.

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/artic ... lican-push" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

While there is more to the environmental question than simply how it's transported, according to this article, pipelines are safer but the number of accidents, deaths, and cost is still sup rising.

Since 1986, pipeline accidents have killed more than 500 people, injured over 4,000, and cost nearly seven billion dollars in property damages. Using government data, ProPublica has mapped thousands of these incidents in a new interactive news application, which provides detailed information about the cause and costs of reported incidents going back nearly three decades.

Not all old pipelines are doomed to fail, but time is a big contributor to corrosion, a leading cause of pipeline failure. Corrosion has caused between 15 and 20 percent of all reported “significant incidents”, which is bureaucratic parlance for an incident that resulted in a death, injury or extensive property damage. That’s over 1,400 incidents since 1986.

http://www.propublica.org/article/pipel ... -pipelines" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Baldy wrote:

DSUrocks07 wrote:Baldy does make a great point however...

It's a question that won't get answered (among others in that particular thread).
Instead of an answer, you'll get off topic questions, a non sequitur response or two, and deflections.

Just like the question in the first post of this thread?

Baldy wrote:

DSUrocks07 wrote:Baldy does make a great point however...

It's a question that won't get answered (among others in that particular thread).
Instead of an answer, you'll get off topic questions, a non sequitur response or two, and deflections.

Pipelines are safer.

Right as usual, butthurt one.

kalm wrote:It appears most of the oil will he refined here with some of the refined product being exported.

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/artic ... lican-push" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

While there is more to the environmental question than simply how it's transported, according to this article, pipelines are safer but the number of accidents, deaths, and cost is still sup rising.

Since 1986, pipeline accidents have killed more than 500 people, injured over 4,000, and cost nearly seven billion dollars in property damages. Using government data, ProPublica has mapped thousands of these incidents in a new interactive news application, which provides detailed information about the cause and costs of reported incidents going back nearly three decades.

Not all old pipelines are doomed to fail, but time is a big contributor to corrosion, a leading cause of pipeline failure. Corrosion has caused between 15 and 20 percent of all reported “significant incidents”, which is bureaucratic parlance for an incident that resulted in a death, injury or extensive property damage. That’s over 1,400 incidents since 1986.

http://www.propublica.org/article/pipel ... -pipelines" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The #1 misnomer about the oil in the proposed XL pipeline is that it's Canadian oil. That's only half true. The XL pipeline is stated to enter into Montana in order to pick up the oil from the Williston Basin and be mixed with the Canadian oil. For whatever reason, that is conveniently left out of the discussion. I doesn't help when you have uninformed statements coming from people like this (from your article)...

In his final press conference of 2014, President Barack Obama said the oil Keystone would carry was from Canada, not the U.S., and would be shipped to global oil markets once it got to the Gulf Coast. The benefits to U.S. consumers would be nominal, he said.

Another point often ignored is the refineries on the Gulf Coast only have so much capacity, and will refine the Keystone oil instead of the imported oil from Venezuela and other less friendly countries overseas (from what I understand, anyway).
When you combine lowering the "carbon footprint" by shipping the Williston oil through a pipeline rather than rail and trucks, the increased safety aspect, and securing more oil from friendly North American allies rather than middle eastern oil sheiks and South American tin-pot dictators, the XL pipeline is a win/win for everyone.

The study you posted was eye opening. Underground natural gas pipelines are a ticking time bomb. There are so many that are in horrible disrepair and in need of replacing, no doubt. However, in an apples to apples comparison, I would much rather see a comparison of the safety, environmental aspects, economics, etc. of shipping crude oil through pipelines to shipping crude oil by rail, truck, tanker, etc.

Baldy wrote:

kalm wrote:It appears most of the oil will he refined here with some of the refined product being exported.

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/artic ... lican-push" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

While there is more to the environmental question than simply how it's transported, according to this article, pipelines are safer but the number of accidents, deaths, and cost is still sup rising.



http://www.propublica.org/article/pipel ... -pipelines" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The #1 misnomer about the oil in the proposed XL pipeline is that it's Canadian oil. That's only half true. The XL pipeline is stated to enter into Montana in order to pick up the oil from the Williston Basin and be mixed with the Canadian oil. For whatever reason, that is conveniently left out of the discussion. I doesn't help when you have uninformed statements coming from people like this (from your article)...

In his final press conference of 2014, President Barack Obama said the oil Keystone would carry was from Canada, not the U.S., and would be shipped to global oil markets once it got to the Gulf Coast. The benefits to U.S. consumers would be nominal, he said.

Another point often ignored is the refineries on the Gulf Coast only have so much capacity, and will refine the Keystone oil instead of the imported oil from Venezuela and other less friendly countries overseas (from what I understand, anyway).
When you combine lowering the "carbon footprint" by shipping the Williston oil through a pipeline rather than rail and trucks, the increased safety aspect, and securing more oil from friendly North American allies rather than middle eastern oil sheiks and South American tin-pot dictators, the XL pipeline is a win/win for everyone.

The study you posted was eye opening. Underground natural gas pipelines are a ticking time bomb. There are so many that are in horrible disrepair and in need of replacing, no doubt. However, in an apples to apples comparison, I would much rather see a comparison of the safety, environmental aspects, economics, etc. of shipping crude oil through pipelines to shipping crude oil by rail, truck, tanker, etc.

Anyone else see the irony of that sentence?

DSUrocks07 wrote:

Baldy wrote: The #1 misnomer about the oil in the proposed XL pipeline is that it's Canadian oil. That's only half true. The XL pipeline is stated to enter into Montana in order to pick up the oil from the Williston Basin and be mixed with the Canadian oil. For whatever reason, that is conveniently left out of the discussion. I doesn't help when you have uninformed statements coming from people like this (from your article)...




Another point often ignored is the refineries on the Gulf Coast only have so much capacity, and will refine the Keystone oil instead of the imported oil from Venezuela and other less friendly countries overseas (from what I understand, anyway).
When you combine lowering the "carbon footprint" by shipping the Williston oil through a pipeline rather than rail and trucks, the increased safety aspect, and securing more oil from friendly North American allies rather than middle eastern oil sheiks and South American tin-pot dictators, the XL pipeline is a win/win for everyone.

The study you posted was eye opening. Underground natural gas pipelines are a ticking time bomb. There are so many that are in horrible disrepair and in need of replacing, no doubt. However, in an apples to apples comparison, I would much rather see a comparison of the safety, environmental aspects, economics, etc. of shipping crude oil through pipelines to shipping crude oil by rail, truck, tanker, etc.

Anyone else see the irony of that sentence?

Which irony? The idea that more oil reaching the market place is not good for the American consumer, or the idea that exporting oil is not good for the American consumer?

SDHornet wrote:

DSUrocks07 wrote:
Anyone else see the irony of that sentence?

Which irony? The idea that more oil reaching the market place is not good for the American consumer, or the idea that exporting oil is not good for the American consumer?

The irony of "mixing" Canadian and US oil...like that's an actual thing.

SDHornet wrote:

DSUrocks07 wrote:
Anyone else see the irony of that sentence?

Which irony? The idea that more oil reaching the market place is not good for the American consumer, or the idea that exporting oil is not good for the American consumer?

But according the article, more oil reaching the market would have an insignificant on domestic prices. If the oil stays here it's a huge advantage but the way I'm reading it is that is still in question.

DSUrocks07 wrote:

SDHornet wrote: Which irony? The idea that more oil reaching the market place is not good for the American consumer, or the idea that exporting oil is not good for the American consumer?

The irony of "mixing" Canadian and US oil...like that's an actual thing.

Mixing eh...me thinks we are not talking oil anymore...

DSUrocks07 wrote:

SDHornet wrote: Which irony? The idea that more oil reaching the market place is not good for the American consumer, or the idea that exporting oil is not good for the American consumer?

The irony of "mixing" Canadian and US oil...like that's an actual thing.

Oil is mixed at the refinery and exporting domestic crude oil is prohibited, for the most part.

DSUrocks07 wrote:

SDHornet wrote: Which irony? The idea that more oil reaching the market place is not good for the American consumer, or the idea that exporting oil is not good for the American consumer?

The irony of "mixing" Canadian and US oil...like that's an actual thing.

Whatcha got against interracial oil???



What I read stated that the oil from Williston would be added to the pipeline. If the oil is physically mixed, or if there are dividers inside the pipeline to keep the oil separate I don't know.

kalm wrote:

Baldy wrote: It's a question that won't get answered (among others in that particular thread).
Instead of an answer, you'll get off topic questions, a non sequitur response or two, and deflections.

Pipelines are safer.

Right as usual, butthurt one.

Translation: "Baldy answered the questions and is, of course, correct again."

Baldy wrote:

DSUrocks07 wrote:
The irony of "mixing" Canadian and US oil...like that's an actual thing.

Whatcha got against interracial oil???



What I read stated that the oil from Williston would be added to the pipeline. If the oil is physically mixed, or if there are dividers inside the pipeline to keep the oil separate I don't know.

I think there are pipelines that mix oils and some that take only one type. I had a neighbor that co-founded an oil company in Pennsylvania in the 1970s. They bought mixed, discarded oil from pipelines, separated it, refined it and then resold it.

travelinman67 wrote:

kalm wrote:
Pipelines are safer.

Right as usual, butthurt one.

Translation: "Baldy answered the questions and is, of course, correct again."

I answered his question without non sequiturs and deflections and he responded to it in kind (thank you Baldy). Good god you're slow.