Pipelines

[schmenke]

E.g. Keystone XL.

Why such strong opposition? Is it the source of the petroleum or the pipeline itself? What are the alternatives? :mark:

[Starter]

It's the ignorance of the opposition. Almost anything can be harmful if not done properly and almost nothing is harmful if done correctly. The rub is that too many times in the past instant profit over ruled good stewardship and, slightly more expensive, safe practice. Key here is building and operating it correctly.

[schmenke]

I get conflicting information when listening to the talking heads. At times it seems the opposition is to the pipeline itself, due to environmental concerns. Other times it seems to be opposition to the importation of “dirty oil” from Alberta.

:cornfused:

[D-Type]

Some people won't accept that if they are to continue running cars at current levels the oil has to come from somewhere. And the easiest oilfields to exploit have all been exhausted. So the extra oil comes at a price.

One of the prices that has to be paid in the case of a long distance pipeline is the environmental impact - the impact of building it and the risk of a spillage. In the case of Keystone the environmental impact of the pipeline gets mixed up with the environmental impact of extracting the oil from the oil sands to put into the pipe.

[schmenke]

Some people won't accept that if they are to continue running cars at current levels the oil has to come from somewhere. And the easiest oilfields to exploit have all been exhausted. So the extra oil comes at a price.

One of the prices that has to be paid in the case of a long distance pipeline is the environmental impact - the impact of building it and the risk of a spillage. In the case of Keystone the environmental impact of the pipeline gets mixed up with the environmental impact of extracting the oil from the oil sands to put into the pipe.

The environmental impact of energy production needs to be evaluated and balanced with cost.

How much environmental risk are we willing to accept to provide for increasing consumption, and at what cost?

If transportation of petroleum by pipeline is an unacceptable risk, then what is the alternative?

[Starter]

The environmental impact of energy production needs to be evaluated and balanced with cost.

How much environmental risk are we willing to accept to provide for increasing consumption, and at what cost?

If transportation of petroleum by pipeline is an unacceptable risk, then what is the alternative?
There is no other alternative than by truck. And that's much more unsafe than the pipeline.

On a side note, I can't help that notice that only a very small number (if any) of the environmentalists and NIMBYs have done any of the following:
1) Sold their car and bought a horse.
2) Had their homes converted to solar only, to avoid paying the power company for burning coal, oil & gas.
3) Got their food only from what they can grow in the back yard so as to avoid all those trucks coming to the local super market.
4) Bicycle to work or walk.
5) Refused to buy anything made from plastic. (Most plastics are made with petroleum.)
6) Since (in the US) most tax money goes to social programs, called their Senator & Congressman to DEMAND that ten percent or more of that money be diverted to alternative energy research.
7) Gotten rid of all the electricity consuming appliances in their house.

[schmenke]

I work for a petroleum developer in Alberta and there is currently such a bottleneck of the stuff to be moved, due to a lack of pipeline capacity, that we are currently negotiating with rail companies to tank it down to ports along the Mississippi river, to then be offloaded into huge vats on barges for shipment to refineries on the gulf coast.

I don’t even want to imagine the environmental impact if one of those barges hits a bridge pier :s

Not to mention that this transportation scheme is about 10 times more expensive than transporting by pipeline :mark: . But hey, the tree huggers all drive a Prius, right?

[Jag_Warrior]

To be honest, I've never completely understood the opposition to the Keystone pipeline either. I don't know that much about it, but on the face of it, it seems a pretty good idea to me. I think some on the left are opposing it for the same reason that some on the right oppose things: because they've been "trained" to. American politics is like a representation of Pavlov's dogs these days: people react to stimuli based on how they think they're supposed to or how they've been conditioned to.

But one of the biggest problems we have here (IMO) is the lack of refining capacity. It's great to have a reliable source of crude. But if the refineries are in the hands of a few, who periodically choke them off and artificially boost prices by conducting "maintenance", then what good does the reliable supply of crude do?

While I'm generally in favor of the Keystone project, I doubt that it's going to have the overwhelmingly positive (domestic) impact that many of its supporters claim. There will probably be lots of shorter term jobs created, a few longer term jobs and no meaningful impact on the oil import balance of trade in the U.S.

[Rudy Tamasz]

The opposition might have to do with inexperience as well. Many environmentalists are young, think they know it all unlike old geezers, and have that defiant attitude. When I was some twenty years younger I, too, protested against a lot of things.

[schmenke]

...While I'm generally in favor of the Keystone project, I doubt that it's going to have the overwhelmingly positive (domestic) impact that many of its supporters claim. There will probably be lots of shorter term jobs created, a few longer term jobs and no meaningful impact on the oil import balance of trade in the U.S.

I dunno Jag. Canada has more recoverable oil deposits than what’s remaining in Saudi Arabia, and the U.S. is first in the queue. A pipeline is the most efficient and cost effective way to transport it. Alternate forms of transportation are far more expensive, the cost of which will be reflected in energy prices, affecting the US economy.

The Chinese are a close second in the queue and are already looking at funding schemes to build pipelines to either the Canadian west coast or ports in the north along the Beaufort Sea (which are largely ice-free now thanks to global warming).

Believe me, despite all our trade agreements with the U.S., Canada’s oil is for sale on a first-come, first-served basis :mark: .