• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Keystone Pipeline= 35 permanent jobs

Yeah, I'm sure it has nothing to do with environmental regulations and red tape at all.

But this is all pretty amusing. Impede refining capacity, then blame the price of oil/gas on said lack of refining capacity and use it as an excuse not to build a pipeline.

Or. You could impede refining capacity to artificially increase the price of gas/oil then blame red tape and the EPA for an excuse to not build new refineries, then get tax credits on top of your higher profits.

If you think the oil companies want to reduce the cost of gas out of altruism, then let's build this America saver.
 
All while promoting the use of trains instead of pipelines to move oil - which the state department this week in its report noted was less safe. Sounds like a winning plan.

Who the fuck is promoting moving oil by train?
 
Last edited:
Or. You could impede refining capacity to artificially increase the price of gas/oil then blame red tape and the EPA for an excuse to not build new refineries, then get tax credits on top of your higher profits.

If you think the oil companies want to reduce the cost of gas out of altruism, then let's build this America saver.

There are half the refineries in the US that there used to be 30+ years ago. Part of the reason is there was too much supply and it didn't make sense to keep some open, especially when you had to comply with environmental regs. We refine almost as much now as we did then with half the refineries. So we're more efficient, but demand is obviously up from what it was in the early 80s since we have more people. And that doesn't even even include much increased demand in China, India, the old eastern bloc, and other countries. The demand is there. If it wasn't prohibitively expensive to merely explore refinery options and jump through local and federal hurdles, we would have more refineries to better keep up with demand. Big oil would still make plenty of money and have secured the ability to make more money in the long term.
 
Railing oil is a big initiative at the moment. This is not one of ONW's best threads.
 
Negative.

"The proposed route for Keystone XL crosses over the Ogallala Aquifer, one of the country’s largest sources of freshwater that provides drinking water and irrigation for millions of Americans.

There have already been 81 significant oil spills so far in 2013, according the Department of Transportation’s Pipeline & Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. A spill on the Ogallala Aquifer would be far worse than any of these spills because of the unique properties of tar sands that make clean up in water particularly difficult.


The 2010 Kalamazoo River spill revealed that tar sands oil sinks to the bottom of bodies of water, making it much harder to clean up. As Michigan State University Professor Steve Hamilton said on NPR “It’s not quite solid, and it’s not quite liquid. You could pick it up and shape it into a ball practically.” The Kalamazoo cleanup effort has already cost over $820 million, and could top $1 billion."


"U.S. pipelines average 280 significant spills a year. TransCanada’s original Keystone pipeline experienced 12 separate spills in the United States in the first year of operation– nearly one every month. One of those spills alone released 21,000 gallons of dirty tar sands oil. Between the U.S. and Canada, the original Keystone pipeline had “over 30 spills” in its first year, according to a report by Cornell University’s Global Labor Institute."

"The report did not address whether spills of diluted bitumen are harder to clean up than spills of conventional crude oil. If the Keystone XL pipeline gets the federal permit it needs for construction, it will carry up to 800,000 barrels of oil a day across land above the Ogallala aquifer, the main source of drinking water for much of the Great Plains.

Cleanup continues of diluted bitumen that spilled three years ago into Michigan's Kalamazoo River. In another spill in late March, a pipeline ruptured in Mayflower, Ark., gushing 200,000 gallons through a residential neighborhood and into a nearby lake. So far, somewhat more than half the oil spilled there has been recovered.

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jun/28/nation/la-na-keystone-pipeline-20130629

"It's tougher than they thought," Terry Abel of the Energy Resources Conservation Board said Tuesday. "It's tougher than we thought, too."

Reclaiming mine tailings has been one of the industry's major environmental challenges. Much of that waste material is composed of particles so fine they take years or even decades to settle out of tailings ponds. Without a way to hasten the process, oilsands tailings ponds have grown from 50 square kilometres in 2006 to 176 square kilometres now."

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/06/11/alberta-oilsands-cleanup-tailings-harder_n_3422814.html

"Tar sands diluted bitumen spills are more damaging and difficult to clean. The 2010 Enbridge tar sands spill into the Kalamazoo River highlighted an industry that was unprepared to address the unique challenges associated with tar sands diluted bitumen spills. Nearly three years after Enbridge spilled a million gallons of tar sands crude into the Kalamazoo River watershed and almost a billion dollars has been spent on cleanup, and 38 miles of that river are still contaminated.

Tar sands diluted bitumen is a mixture of very light petrochemicals and very heavy bitumen. Once spilled in a waterbody, the light petrochemicals – including toxins such as benzene and toluene - gas off, leaving the heavy bitumen to sink. As Inside Climate covered in Dilbit Disaster: Inside the Biggest Oil Spill You’ve Never Heard Of, during the Enbridge tar sands spill in Kalamazoo, Michigan, significant heavy crude sank below the water’s surface and traveled along the river bed. EPA’s on-site spill coordinator Mark Durno summed it up:

The Michigan and Arkansas accidents show "that this material is very difficult to remove from water bodies and raise questions about its short- and long-term effects on the health of the people exposed to it after a pipeline failure,"

http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/aswift/tar_sands_pipeline_safety_risk.html
There is so much wrong with your understanding of the problem here it's staggering. You are equating problems with a DIRECT spill in a body of water with the Ogallala aquifer. Do you understand the difference between them? From the Wiki page on the aquifer with references:

Research hydrogeologist James Goeke, professor emeritus at the University of Nebraska, who has spent more than 40 years studying the Ogallala Aquifer, phoned TransCanada officials and quizzed them on the project, and satisfied himself that danger to the aquifer was small, because he believes that a spill would be unlikely to penetrate down into the aquifer, and if it did, he believes that the contamination would be localized. He noted: “A lot of people in the debate about the pipeline talk about how leakage would foul the water and ruin the entire water supply in the state of Nebraska and that’s just a false,” [21] Goeke said "... a leak from the XL pipeline would pose a minimal risk to the aquifer as a whole."[22]

The oil is far more viscous than conventional oil, which is why it's "heavy". Regular oil actually poses a greater risk of aquifer penetration because it has a much higher likelihood of penetrating soil and is much more of a problem in a spill even in direct water because more of it floats and dissipates.

Mine tailings have nothing to do with moving oil or a pipeline spill.

No one said that spills won't occur, but the problems of spills OVER LAND are far less than most anything other petroleum liquid we move because of it's viscosity. The likelihood of a significant spill over water is tiny because the pipe is almost entirely over land.
 
Last edited:
There is so much wrong with your understanding of the problem here it's staggering. You are equating problems with a DIRECT spill in a body of water with the Ogallala aquifer. Do you understand the difference between them? From the Wiki page on the aquifer with references:

Research hydrogeologist James Goeke, professor emeritus at the University of Nebraska, who has spent more than 40 years studying the Ogallala Aquifer, phoned TransCanada officials and quizzed them on the project, and satisfied himself that danger to the aquifer was small, because he believes that a spill would be unlikely to penetrate down into the aquifer, and if it did, he believes that the contamination would be localized. He noted: “A lot of people in the debate about the pipeline talk about how leakage would foul the water and ruin the entire water supply in the state of Nebraska and that’s just a false,” [21] Goeke said "... a leak from the XL pipeline would pose a minimal risk to the aquifer as a whole."[22]

The oil is far more viscous than conventional oil, which is why it's "heavy". Regular oil actually poses a greater risk of aquifer penetration because it has a much higher likelihood of penetrating soil and is much more of a problem in a spill even in direct water because more of it floats and dissipates.

Mine tailings have nothing to do with moving oil or a pipeline spill.

No one said that spills won't occur, but the problems of spills OVER LAND are far less than most anything other petroleum liquid we move because of it's viscosity. The likelihood of a significant spill over water is tiny because the pipe is almost entirely over land.

This guy?

"Keystone-XL-is-safe television ads blanket the state (they're also on YouTube, but embedding and comments have been shut off) featuring Jim Goeke, a professor emeritus at UNL in a frantic attempt to counter the damaging report made by another, currently-employed UNL professor, John S. Stansbury. Only 33% of Nebraskans are now in favor of building the pipeline over the Ogallala Aquifer.

On its website TransCanada says:

It is important to note that Professor Goeke is speaking in the ads as an independent expert - he received no compensation from TransCanada.

Interesting, because Goeke told the Daily Nebraskan that TransCanada tried to buy him off, but he did the ads for free. The Daily Nebraskan added:

Goeke said he felt guilty about associating the university with TransCanada. "It might have been injudicious to lend my status to them," Goeke said."
 
"Even if Keystone XL never leaks a drop (not a chance; Keystone 1 has leaked at least a dozen times in its first year) there are compelling reasons not to put the pipeline in the Sandhills:

"That new route also cuts directly across the sensitive Nebraska Sand Hills and Ogallala Aquifer -- a unique ecosystem and watershed that supports highly fragile grasses and other plant life that doesn't exist anywhere else on the continent.

A single set of tire tracks across the area, he said, can trigger erosion that can lead to a "blowout" which can wipe out plant life across 50 hectares within a couple of years, if steps aren't taken to stop the process.

As a result of that fragility, Domina said, local ranchers will drive miles out of their way to avoid cutting across a pasture or field with their pickup truck.
Pushing a pipeline through that region, he said, could be devastating. "
 
Last edited:
"Water has always been first and foremost in our mind," said Tom Genung of Hastings, Neb., who owns ranchland in Holt County. "We were promised everything would be okay if [the pipeline] got out of the Sandhills ... but it's not."

TransCanada's new route is currently just a "corridor"—a 2,000-foot wide path that will eventually be whittled down to a narrower route. It is among several possible routes identified in a 54-page report [5] that TransCanada submitted last week to Nebraska's Department of Environmental Quality [6] (DEQ), the state agency in charge of the pipeline's environmental review.

The company's preferred corridor avoids the Sandhills of southwest Holt County, just as TransCanada promised it would. But it still crosses through northern Holt County, where the soil is often sandy and permeable and the water table is high—the same characteristics that make the Sandhills so vulnerable to the impact of an oil spill.

In some parts of the new corridor, the groundwater lies so close to the surface that the pipeline would run through the aquifer instead of over it. (See map of TransCanada's preferred Keystone XL route [7].)

Hydrogeologist Jim Goeke, a professor emeritus at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, said an oil spill in northern Holt County would contaminate the local groundwater, just as it would in southwestern Holt County. "You still have the same kind of problems, essentially, but you get around the Sandhills, and that was the purpose of the rerouting."
 
The Sandhills of Nebraska should be used for one thing only: exceptional golf courses.
 
Goeke said the landowners have some valid concerns. The new route still crosses "areas with high water tables, but [it's] a lot less than the original route," he said.

Citing TransCanada's route-proposal document, Goeke said the preferred corridor would cross 10.5 miles where the groundwater lies 5 to 10 feet below the land surface, equal to "a little over six percent of the entire route through Nebraska."


Another 12.4 miles would cross where depth to water is 10 to 15 feet. The same document says the new route would not cross any regions where depth to water is between zero and five feet.

That calculation seems to ignore numerous river and stream crossings where the water lies close to the ground. Goeke speculated that TransCanada might have excluded the rivers because the company plans to bury the pipeline beneath rivers at the crossings.

InsideClimate News contacted TransCanada for comment, but the company didn't respond before deadline.
 
There is so much wrong with your understanding of the problem here it's staggering. You are equating problems with a DIRECT spill in a body of water with the Ogallala aquifer. Do you understand the difference between them?

No one said that spills won't occur, but the problems of spills OVER LAND are far less than most anything other petroleum liquid we move because of it's viscosity. The likelihood of a significant spill over water is tiny because the pipe is almost entirely over land.

Although significant portions of the new pipeline are UNDER LAND and directly through the Aquifier.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top