Can someone tell me how a pipeline isn't good for the environment?

No, it's not a given. Canada blocked a pipeline to the west coast, and Obama blocked the US route. This is inefficient oil and Alberta won't use it themselves. When the keystone pipeline was blocked the Alberta oil industry crashed. It won't come out without an easy path to a market. Even China is focused on renewables. Focusing on extracting fossil fuels is backwards.

jimmy bobby wrote:

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.

jimmy bobby wrote:

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.

It's not a given. What gets extracted is driven by economics. If oil stays as cheap as it is right now, the costly extraction of oil from oil sands paired with having to transport by rail/truck makes it too costly to compete with other sources.

But that Auburn article? Come on. Sources included NPR, Tar Sands Blockade and about.com. Nice one college of liberal arts.

I think it's mostly symbolic.

From what I've read it's safer, more friendly to the environment, and cheaper to transport the oil by pipeline than by rail or truck. So the rational argument against the pipeline by greens may be that without it less oil gets extracted.

But I think a lot of these issues are more about the symbolic concept of stopping 'big oil'.

***

On the other side of the fence just from the anecdotal stories from where I live (they frack a little more than a mile from my house), it seems that deep water injection wells can cause earthquakes. Could someone sue an oil company for such a quake that causes damage to a driveway, cracks a foundation? That would be a way to stop the process as fracking can be done without the injection wells it just costs more from what I understand.

Rachel Maddow had a segment tonight on just this question. She pointed out that on the day of Trump's acceptance of the Republican nomination there was a 50,000 gallon leak of an oil pipeline in a Canadian province. The leak happened at a point where the pipeline crossed the North Saskatchewan River, and for months afterwards there was no clean drinking water available for towns downstream of the leak. Then, just tonight, another pipeline rupture leaked 50,000 and is in the process of wrecking another river, wildlife, and drinking water. All 100,000 gallons of this happening in a distant Canadian province, so far.

It is also about what we want to invest billions and billions of dollars in. Clean energy? Or energy that is unsustainable in the long term?

wejo wrote:

I think it's mostly symbolic.

From what I've read it's safer, more friendly to the environment, and cheaper to transport the oil by pipeline than by rail or truck. So the rational argument against the pipeline by greens may be that without it less oil gets extracted.

But I think a lot of these issues are more about the symbolic concept of stopping 'big oil'.

***

On the other side of the fence just from the anecdotal stories from where I live (they frack a little more than a mile from my house), it seems that deep water injection wells can cause earthquakes. Could someone sue an oil company for such a quake that causes damage to a driveway, cracks a foundation? That would be a way to stop the process as fracking can be done without the injection wells it just costs more from what I understand.

Google 'pipeline leaks'. It appears that Canada just had another 100,000 gallon leak today. Huge leaks happen frequently. And this oil does indeed lead to more emissions. I guess that makes some people happy? Do you burn tires instead of wood in your fireplace too? You can get em free and they make a nice, hot, long lasting fire.

As mentioned above American citizens have their land seized and water supplies threatened for foreign companies in these situations. How on earth that act became a rallying call for any American escapes me. It happened to farmers right up the road from some family of mine. Boy were the people pissed in that deep red county when the local government was bribed off by the tycoons. Funny how they all became 'greens' when someone put a hastily constructed oil line above their drinking supply.

And your greatest concern with fracking created earthquakes is that your concrete will crack? Lord, the fuel executives must laugh and laugh when they read some of this stuff.

Not Refined wrote:

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.

You're a moron. Just because it was taken from UNDERGROUND somewhere, does not mean it will not have extremely negative effects if you drop a ton of it ON TOP OF THE GROUND somewhere else. Do you think the oil from the Deepwater Horizon disaster was instantly refined from something safe to harmful as it spilled into the Gulf?

And despite the claims of pipeline builders on safety, these things leak all the time. It would be physically possible to build a statistically leak proof pipeline, but it'd be too expensive. The Keystone XL will leak if it is built at some point in its life, it's just a matter of when. And if it leaks over the Ogallala Aquifer, one of the largest in the world, it could screw up that precious source of fresh water for a very long time depending on the magnitude of the spill.

And about those saying "it's going to come out of the ground anyways", you're missing the point. It's not free to drill and distribute that oil, and the more expensive it is to do that, the less demand there will be for it and thus less will come out. The lack of a pipeline keeps it more expensive.

That in general will contribute to keeping the price of oil higher and thus lead to less consumption and less emissions, good for the environment. But even more than that effect on average price, as others have pointed out, the extraction and refinement of this particular type of oil (Alberta oil sands) is even more energy and emissions intensive than other types of oil. Every gallon of this oil kept in the ground is like keeping 1.2 gallons of some other type of oil in the ground, which of course adds up when you're talking billions of gallons.

Raff wrote:

Rachel Maddow had a segment tonight on just this question. She pointed out that on the day of Trump's acceptance of the Republican nomination there was a 50,000 gallon leak of an oil pipeline in a Canadian province. The leak happened at a point where the pipeline crossed the North Saskatchewan River, and for months afterwards there was no clean drinking water available for towns downstream of the leak. Then, just tonight, another pipeline rupture leaked 50,000 and is in the process of wrecking another river, wildlife, and drinking water. All 100,000 gallons of this happening in a distant Canadian province, so far.

I did watch her show on Saskatchewan Province. It is horrific.

Up to now, the locals cannot drink the water from Saskatchewan river.

Also, the Ogallala aquifer with carries about 70% of US underground water (if I am right on that figure) could be messed up by a leak.

This would not only affect drinking water but agriculture as well.

Also, the Keystone XL will not be transporting oil per se but bitumen or tar which is far worse.

Triggered Native wrote:

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.

I work in the oil industry. Native Americans have traditional held oil companies at ransom for large payouts. It's extortion. That natives' standoff over the Keystone is no different -- once the payout hits a magic number, all their opposition will go away.

Nope wrote:

Even China is focused on renewables. Focusing on extracting fossil fuels is backwards.

You mean the China that wants to buy all our coal? Lol.

Pipelines leak toxic chemicals into the environment

I'm not understanding why the Canadian's can't just build a few new refineries to refine their tar sands oil, if lack of refining capacity is the problem.

Seems to me they're just outsourcing their environmental disaster to the USA.

America first, I guess.

Raff wrote:

Rachel Maddow had a segment tonight on just this question. She pointed out that on the day of Trump's acceptance of the Republican nomination there was a 50,000 gallon leak of an oil pipeline in a Canadian province. The leak happened at a point where the pipeline crossed the North Saskatchewan River, and for months afterwards there was no clean drinking water available for towns downstream of the leak. Then, just tonight, another pipeline rupture leaked 50,000 and is in the process of wrecking another river, wildlife, and drinking water. All 100,000 gallons of this happening in a distant Canadian province, so far.

That Rachel Maddow dude is fake news. The pipeline will be built with terrific American steel not the cheap stuff from Chinah.

kid history wrote:

Nope wrote:

Even China is focused on renewables. Focusing on extracting fossil fuels is backwards.

You mean the China that wants to buy all our coal? Lol.

Yes, that China.

The oil transported by rail has to compete with a finite amount of rail cars and railway lines used for transportation of other products, such as grain. And in Western Canad, we ship a lot of grain by rail.

So a pipeline would probably increase supply if getting it out of the oil sands is the bottleneck. It's not as simple as saying, barrel for barrel, pipelines are safer than rail.

Oh please... wrote:

I'm not understanding why the Canadian's can't just build a few new refineries to refine their tar sands oil, if lack of refining capacity is the problem.

Seems to me they're just outsourcing their environmental disaster to the USA.

America first, I guess.

And how would they transport the refined products, genius?

in the no wrote:

Oh please... wrote:

I'm not understanding why the Canadian's can't just build a few new refineries to refine their tar sands oil, if lack of refining capacity is the problem.

Seems to me they're just outsourcing their environmental disaster to the USA.

America first, I guess.

And how would they transport the refined products, genius?

This oil is for export. You build the refinery on the coast, where the oil tankers come and pick it up. Canada already has pipelines to the coast, they just don't have refineries there to handle the tar sands oil.

They could build a new refinery or two, and expand their own pipelines, and not even involve us if they wanted to.

I work on the environmental side of the oil/gas industry. Cleaning up pipeline and railroad releases is my job.

1). Assuming the oil will be delivered to market, Pipelines are nominally better for the environment than rail or truck transport. Less energy required to move the product, lower rate of incidents, and incidents are usually small and pose no acute human risk. Contrast this w overland transport where a spill has a serious chance of explosion or fire and requires significant inputs of energy per vol product delivered just to move the train/truck.

2). Because of everything above, pipeline costs are lower than overland costs, and the difference can absolutely make or break the feasibility of extraction. Alberta tar sands are barely feasible even w a pipeline at current prices, and Bakken is heading that way as well. Not unreasonable to think that oil might stay in the ground if a pipeline can't be built.

3). Point of clarification - if there is a spill somewhere over the Ogallala aquifer, it will only affect the highly local area (less than an acre, likely) where the spill occurs. Groundwater flows, but only very very slowly (cm/day) - contaminant plumes move at roughly the rate of groundwater. I'm not saying this makes it OK, or that it shouldn't be cleaned up (hire my company to do it!), but a spill in nowhere, KS doesn't instantly render all of the massive Ogallala as unusable water. Some comments above imply that would be the case.

Not Refined wrote:

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.

I heard lava is good to pour all over yourself also.

Also inhaling carbon monoxide, methane and sulfur dioxide is great for you.