• 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

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.[/QUOTE]

Good call.

"The company agreed to bury the pipeline deeper in the ground than originally proposed"

http://www.popularmechanics.com/sci...t-building-keystone-xl-15119227?click=main_sr
 
Last edited:
ONW said:
Although significant portions of the new pipeline are UNDER LAND and directly through the Aquifier.
Click to expand...
Alright, you've convinced me. You actually know nothing about the science behind these issues.
 
ONW said:
"The company agreed to bury the pipeline deeper in the ground than originally proposed"
Click to expand...
Translated: We are going to do what we reasonably need to do to satisfy the opponents who are crying wolf...again.

Over land never mean on top of land, it meant not over open water like a lake, ocean or river. Acting like it meant something else is reductio ad absurdum.
 
pourdeac said:
LOL....I was just going to post basically the same thing. We push way more dangerous and potentially toxic petro products all over the place via pipes, but this Keystone one is really different!
Click to expand...

I'm well aware of this fact, and the science behind the industry pour. Two wrongs don't make a right.
 
pourdeac said:
Translated: We are going to do what we reasonably need to do to satisfy the opponents who are crying wolf...again.

Over land never mean on top of land, it meant not over open water like a lake, ocean or river. Acting like it meant something else is reductio ad absurdum.
Click to expand...

Translated: We are going to invest the absolute minimum we have to getting this approved...again.
 
ONW said:
Translated: We are going to invest the absolute minimum we have to getting this approved...again.
Click to expand...
If you understand the science and history then you know that pipelines are the cheapest and safest ways to move this type of stuff and all sorts of safety protocols and features are built into the system. I'd hardly call that an "absolute minimum" effort like you're trying to imply.
 
WFFaithful said:
http://www.journalnow.com/specialreports/coalashspill/
Click to expand...
What is this supposed to tell me? The drinking water is apparently safe.

There's a reality here that most don't really understand. As analytical techniques have improved, the ability to detect "toxins" increases. 30 years ago they probably wouldn't be able to detect arsenic in that water, but now we can pretty much observe things down to single atoms. That doesn't mean it's bad.

Case in point. Our chemistry lab outflow has excessive mercury in it from years of using mercury. We put a tank in right off the building to even out the concentration because it was spiking...killed 3 trees to put the tank in. Some tar like goo came out and it tested high in mercury so we brought in a larger portable holding tank to increase the volume...and had to build a fancy filtering system in between that doesn't work. After the goo came out, we plumbed the lower pipes to remove the goo, and all that did was stir up more mercury and it took 6 months for it to drop below acceptable limits. When the red tank is high in mercury, we have to off load it to a semi as toxic waste. We've spent >$300k on it so far and climbing...whatever minimum we have to do to fix the problem like everyone else.

Excessive mercury for us means >52 parts per trillion. You could put a single can of tuna in that huge red tank and the mercury in it would blow that number away and make it really really toxic. It's beyond ridiculous as a real problem.....but not to you guys and the environmentalists.
 
ONW 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. "
Click to expand...

I hope we are more well equipped to get this "this stuff" through the country than Canada.
 
pourdeac said:
What is this supposed to tell me? The drinking water is apparently safe.

There's a reality here that most don't really understand. As analytical techniques have improved, the ability to detect "toxins" increases. 30 years ago they probably wouldn't be able to detect arsenic in that water, but now we can pretty much observe things down to single atoms. That doesn't mean it's bad.

Case in point. Our chemistry lab outflow has excessive mercury in it from years of using mercury. We put a tank in right off the building to even out the concentration because it was spiking...killed 3 trees to put the tank in. Some tar like goo came out and it tested high in mercury so we brought in a larger portable holding tank to increase the volume...and had to build a fancy filtering system in between that doesn't work. After the goo came out, we plumbed the lower pipes to remove the goo, and all that did was stir up more mercury and it took 6 months for it to drop below acceptable limits. When the red tank is high in mercury, we have to off load it to a semi as toxic waste. We've spent >$300k on it so far and climbing...whatever minimum we have to do to fix the problem like everyone else.

Excessive mercury for us means >52 parts per trillion. You could put a single can of tuna in that huge red tank and the mercury in it would blow that number away and make it really really toxic. It's beyond ridiculous as a real problem.....but not to you guys and the environmentalists.
Click to expand...

How long was your lab leaking Mercury into the environment? How much of the 300K invested was used on the "filtering system in between that doesn't work?" Who determine >52 parts per trillion was the threshold?

Honest questions. No longer being argumentative.
 
Keystone wants the US to assume all of the negative risks with little to none of the benefits.

The basic Rule #1 before this is allowed to be built should be for the company to show how they would clean up a spill. If necessary, they should have to give a live demonstration on their own land how to contain and clean up say a 100,000 or 500,000 barrel spill. Until they do this, there should be no consideration of building the pipeline.
 
Anybody live in the Dan River's water table?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top