I don't understand how an oil pipeline wouldn't be good for the environment. The oil is coming out one way or the other. So it's just a matter of what is most efficient and safe way to transport it. Wouldn't an oil pipeline be much better for the environment than using rails/18-wheelers where their could be accidents?
What am I missing here?
Or is the argument that if there is no pipeline then they won't extract the oil?
Can someone tell me how a pipeline isn't good for the environment?
Non-Running
Current Events
Report Thread
You are reporting this thread to the moderators for review and possible removal from the forum.
-
-
There's been leaks and accidents with pipelines before. The leaks can be 'small' but go undetected for a long time, seeping into streams or aquifers below, effecting the environment and specifically, water supplies.
From what I know, this is the major concern people have. I think this argument is similar to "nuclear power plants are bad cuz radiation" argument. Accidents are rare and were much more common long ago when technology and safety was sub par. I don't know much about the pipeline leak problems to stand firmly on one side or the other, though. -
Keystone is about 2000 miles. What's the cost of having a bunch of ultra walkers (aka immigrants) walking up and down and inspect the pipeline?
-
a little confused wrote:
Or is the argument that if there is no pipeline then they won't extract the oil?
OP. I think you are right if the oil is going to come out from there eventually you might as well have a pipeline. But I think the main argument is that the oil from that region is 'dirtier' than normal oil.
Here is a CNN article on it:
CNN wrote:
Oil from the oil sands emit 17% more carbon dioxide than the average barrel of crude refined in the United States, according to the State Department. This is largely due to the heat that's needed to separate the oil from the sand.
And Canada has a massive amount of oil sands. There's more oil sand oil in Alberta than all the conventional oil in the United States and Russia combined. If every drop of oil from this region is burned, it's "game over" for the climate, former NASA scientist James Hansen wrote in an editorial last year.
http://money.cnn.com/2013/11/18/news/economy/keystone-pipeline/ -
The researchers at the University of Auburn have published the following analysis:
"Tar sand produces 17% more greenhouse gases than traditional crude oil (NPR). The air quality has become life threatening, and residents are forced to breathe in dangerous emissions. Children in surrounding the new pipeline are 56% more likely to develop leukemia versus children that live ten miles away."
"If a leak does occur once the pipe is built, residents will be at risk of toxic exposure. In every instance of a tar sand leak in populated areas, toxic chemical exposure through respiration has occurred. Toxic chemical exposure can lead to migraines, painful rashes, breathing complications, nausea, chemical sensitivities, and exacerbated cancer activity (Tar Sands Blockade). Tar sand sinks into water, making the cleanup extraordinarily expensive. When tar sand is exposed to air, the harmful chemicals that are added as diluents evaporate into the air forming heavy toxic clouds close to ground level."
http://cla.auburn.edu/ces/energy/oil-pipelines-and-spills/ -
I think rojo is on the right track. Some opponents of pipelines would prefer that oil not come out of the ground.
-
Bring Back the 880 wrote:
I think rojo is on the right track. Some opponents of pipelines would prefer that oil not come out of the ground.
"Some"? I would venture to guess "All" would be more appropriate choice of words. -
Observer Guy wrote:
The researchers at the University of Auburn have published the following analysis:
"Tar sand produces 17% more greenhouse gases than traditional crude oil (NPR). The air quality has become life threatening, and residents are forced to breathe in dangerous emissions. Children in surrounding the new pipeline are 56% more likely to develop leukemia versus children that live ten miles away."
"If a leak does occur once the pipe is built, residents will be at risk of toxic exposure. In every instance of a tar sand leak in populated areas, toxic chemical exposure through respiration has occurred. Toxic chemical exposure can lead to migraines, painful rashes, breathing complications, nausea, chemical sensitivities, and exacerbated cancer activity (Tar Sands Blockade). Tar sand sinks into water, making the cleanup extraordinarily expensive. When tar sand is exposed to air, the harmful chemicals that are added as diluents evaporate into the air forming heavy toxic clouds close to ground level."
Thanks for sharing actual information. I know more now than I did before I read that. -
My alternative facts say that tar sand is perfectly safe to wash with and even drink in small quantities.
-
It's just something Republicans favor because it benefits the rich oil industry. Electoral votes don't come for free. It's funny they'll go to court for 10 years to fight over a neighbor that builds a fence that obstructs the view on their personal property but put a pipe thru a thousand miles of land and it's no big deal. Who cares if it's nimby.
-
justthefacts wrote:
Bring Back the 880 wrote:
I think rojo is on the right track. Some opponents of pipelines would prefer that oil not come out of the ground.
"Some"? I would venture to guess "All" would be more appropriate choice of words.
Well, there are others that just don't want the pipeline running through their backyard. -
Aside from the irony of the "America First" president building pipelines across our soil so that Canadians can sell oil to China, the issue is that those who stand to be harmed are not sharing in the benefit. It's not good economics when the party making money off of a deal gets to push off all of the risk onto a third party.
"Privatize the profits, socialize the risk" seems to be the slogan of the administration. -
The oil will be extracted and transported for sale. That's a given.
The question then is what is the best way to transport it. It's clearly a pipeline (vs train or truck).
I'm no fan of Trump, but this is an easy decision. Obama's stonewalling was the extreme position, not Trump's. -
To add to the Canada first logic behind this - Canadian refineries cannot refine this type of oil - their refineries would need major upgrades. I believe some US refineries can handle this particular crude but not all.
https://www.desmog.ca/2013/09/30/oil-export-tar-sands-bitumen-cannot-be-refined-eastern-canada
With this in mind I would think the Don would negotiate a solid deal for those areas affected with some sort of kick back and/or heavy tariffs as this crude will compete with US crude for space in our refineries.
public risk for private gain wrote:
Aside from the irony of the "America First" president building pipelines across our soil so that Canadians can sell oil to China, the issue is that those who stand to be harmed are not sharing in the benefit. It's not good economics when the party making money off of a deal gets to push off all of the risk onto a third party.
"Privatize the profits, socialize the risk" seems to be the slogan of the administration. -
You are missing the point. The fact that there is a chance that the oil can leak and affect the water is enough. And what's worse is that they are doing this to one of the most exploited groups of people in the entire country historically. The question is would they put the pipeline through a predominantly white area? Maybe or maybe not but, you can't just say it's okay to keep exploiting us.
-
sorry for ya wrote:
It's just something Republicans favor because it benefits the rich oil industry. Electoral votes don't come for free. It's funny they'll go to court for 10 years to fight over a neighbor that builds a fence that obstructs the view on their personal property but put a pipe thru a thousand miles of land and it's no big deal. Who cares if it's nimby.
There are millions of miles of pipelines running across the US, often in railroad right-of-ways. It's not a big deal adding more. -
this is one of the dumbest thread titles I have seen in awhile.
-
What's inevitable is that humankind will let go of oil dependence. The question is when.
Oil costs more than environmental damages. Dirty oil also means costly to extract, without federal government subsidy. Billion handed to Exon last year.
Oil dependence led us to support dictators and despots across the middle east, so those costs have run into the trillions of dollars, millions of lives lost and thousands of US kids killed to prop up a misguided energy industry. -
Just so we understand... the oil going through this pipeline would be unrefined, i.e. in the same state in which it was pulled from the ground.
Yeah, it'd be an unimaginable environmental holocaust if any were to spill on the ground. SMH.
